Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan [1 ed.] 9780309571951

Citation preview

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

Mineral Resources and Society

A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan

Panel to Review the Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan of the U.S. Geological Survey Committee on Earth Resources Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Support for this study by the Panel to Review the Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan of the U.S. Geological Survey was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, under USGS Agreement No. 14-08-0001-A0900. Additional copies of this report are available from Board on Earth Sciences and Resources National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 202-334-2744 Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Cover: A digital aeromagnetic map of a portion of the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. The map was assembled by the USGS for a mineral resource assessment of the southeastern United States. Structural features include igneous dikes (N and NW trending) and Piedmont faults (NE-SW trending). The Gold Hill fault (central and west of shaded dome) is a locus for numerous small gold mines.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

PANEL TO REVIEW THE MINERAL RESOURCE SURVEYS PROGRAM PLAN OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMUEL S. ADAMS, Chairman, Minerals Consultant, Lincoln, New Hampshire PHILIP A. ABELSON, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. HUGO T. DUMMETT, BHP Minerals International, Inc., San Francisco, California RODERICK G. EGGERT, Colorado School of Mines, Golden D. CHRISTOPHER FINDLAY, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa (ret.) ANN S. MAEST, Hagler Bailly, Boulder, Colorado DIANNE R. NIELSON, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City JONATHAN G. PRICE, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno DONALD D. RUNNELLS, Shepherd Miller, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado BRIAN J. SKINNER, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut DAVID A. STEPHENSON, South Pass Resources, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona PETER G. VIKRE, ASARCO, Inc., Reno, Nevada U.S. Geological Survey Liaison RICHARD B. CARTEN Staff CRAIG M. SCHIFFRIES, Study Director LALLY ANNE ANDERSON, Staff Associate JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iv

COMMITTEE ON EARTH RESOURCES CAREL OTTE, JR., Chairman, Independent Geologist, LaCañada, California PHILIP H. ABELSON, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. SAMUEL S. ADAMS, Minerals Consultant, Lincoln, New Hampshire JOEL DARMSTADTER, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. RODERICK G. EGGERT, Colorado School of Mines, Golden MARCO EINAUDI, Stanford University, California NORMAN H. FOSTER, Independent Petroleum Geologist, Denver, Colorado CHARLES G. GROAT, University of Texas, El Paso PERRY R. HAGENSTEIN, Resources Issues, Inc., Wayland Massachusetts DONALD C. HANEY, Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington PHILIP E. LAMOREAUX, P. E. LaMoreaux and Associates, Tuscaloosa, Alabama SUSAN M. LANDON, Thomasson Partner Associates, Denver, Colorado JILL D. PASTERIS, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri JONATHAN G. PRICE, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno NOEL TYLER, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin W. FRANK WEST, PACO Minerals, Inc., Dallas, Texas Staff CRAIG M. SCHIFFRIES, Director JUDITH L. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

v

BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES J. FREEMAN GILBERT, Chairman, University of California, San Diego THURE CERLING, University of Utah, Salt Lake City MARK P. CLOOS, University of Texas at Austin JOEL DARMSTADTER, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. KENNETH I. DAUGHERTY, E-Systems, Fairfax, Virginia WILLIAM R. DICKINSON, University of Arizona, Tucson, emeritus MARCO T. EINAUDI, Stanford University, California NORMAN H. FOSTER, Independent Petroleum Geologist, Denver, Colorado CHARLES G. GROAT, University of Texas, El Paso DONALD C. HANEY, Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington SUSAN M. KIDWELL, University of Chicago, Illinois SUSAN KIEFFER, Kieffer & Woo, Inc., Palgrave, Ontario PHILIP E. LAMOREAUX, P. E. LaMoreaux and Associates, Tuscaloosa, Alabama SUSAN M. LANDON, Thomasson Partner Associates, Denver, Colorado J. BERNARD MINSTER, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California ALEXANDRA NAVROTSKY, Princeton University, New Jersey JILL D. PASTERIS, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri EDWARD C. ROY, JR., Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas Staff CRAIG M. SCHIFFRIES, Director THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Associate Director INA B. ALTERMAN, Senior Program Officer WILLIAM E. BENSON, Senior Program Officer KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Senior Program Officer ANNE M. LINN, Senior Program Officer CHARLES MEADE, Senior Program Officer LALLY ANNE ANDERSON, Staff Associate VERNA J. BOWEN, Administrative Assistant JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant JUDITH L. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant v

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi

COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chairman, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas at Austin JERRY F. FRANKLIN, University of Washington, Seattle GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville DEBRA S. KNOPMAN, Progressive Foundation, Washington, D.C. PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, California JUDITH E. MCDOWELL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, New Jersey RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ELLEN K. SILBERGELD, University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida Staff STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director GREGORY SYMMES, Reports Officer JAMES MALLORY, Administrative Officer SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

viii

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

ix

Preface

The U.S. Congress directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop a program plan for its mineral-resource activities. In 1995, the USGS completed the Mineral Resource Surveys Program (MRSP) plan requested by Congress (Appendix A). To obtain an independent review of the five-year MRSP plan, the U.S. Geological Survey, in a letter from Dr. Willis H. White, the Chief of the USGS Office of Mineral Resources, requested in July, 1995, that the National Research Council (NRC) evaluate the MRSP plan and recommend improvements. The Panel to Review the Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan was established by the NRC in November, 1995. The panel consists of 12 geoscientists and resource experts from the mining and mineral industry, the environmental consulting industry, academia, state agencies, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The panel members have expertise in mitigation of environmental impacts related to extraction and use of mineral resources, as well as in genesis, assessment, exploration, and development of mineral resources. In spite of this diversity of professional focus and experience, the panel reached consensus on all significant issues, thus obviating the need for minority reports. Brief biographies of panel members are provided in Appendix F. The panel operates under the Committee on Earth Resources, which is under the aegis of the Board on Earth Science and Resources within the NRC's Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. The USGS requested the panel's report by April, 1996, in order to provide timely advice for the fiscal year 1997 planning process. The panel operated on a fast-track schedule, with three meetings in three months. The panel met once in Washington, D.C., and twice near Denver, Colorado. Briefings and discussions were conducted with approximately 50 representatives of federal and state agencies, policy

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

x

groups, industry groups, and other mineral resource experts who work with the MRSP or use its products. Presenters had the opportunity to discuss their mineral resource planning needs and provide observations and recommendations regarding the MRSP. The presenters are identified in Appendix B. In light of these briefings and discussions, as well as information provided by the MRSP staff, published literature, technical reports, and the expertise of its members, the panel evaluated and made recommendations for the MRSP plan. Without the intensive effort of the NRC staff, particularly Dr. Craig M. Schiffries, Study Director, this report could not have been developed within the assigned time frame. Samuel S. Adams Chairman

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xi

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY Context, Charge to the Panel, Description of the MRSP Plan, Geological Surveys and National Mineral Needs, Appropriate Federal Functions in Meeting National Mineral Needs,

5 5 8 9 10 16

2

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS Introduction, Assessments Subprogram, Evaluation of Components, Subprogram Recommendations, Mitigation Studies Subprogram, Evaluation of Components, Subprogram Recommendations, Resource Investigations Subprogram, Evaluation of Components, Subprogram Recommendations, Information and Technology Transfer Subprogram, Evaluation of Components, Subprogram Recommendations,

23

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Vision, Mission, and Objectives,

45 46

3

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

23 24 25 29 30 33 35 36 37 39 41 41 42

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xii

Culture, Clients, and Communications, Core Competence, Excellence in Mineral Deposit Research, Scientific Integrity, Professional Expertise, Planning and Performance,

47 53 53 54 55 55

REFERENCES

61

APPENDIX A:

Summary of MRSP Plan

63

APPENDIX B:

List of Presentations to the Panel

69

APPENDIX C:

Responses to Specific Questions in the Statement of Task for the Panel

73

APPENDIX D:

International Comparisons: Changing Programs and Cultures in National Geological Surveys

77

APPENDIX E:

USGS Vision and Mission Statements

81

APPENDIX F:

Biographies of Panel Members

83

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

Executive Summary

In 1994, Congress directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop a program plan for its mineral resource activities. The resulting five-year Mineral Resource Surveys Program (MRSP) Plan (herein referred to as the Plan) represents a significant departure from the past, and its implementation is resulting in significant changes in the direction of USGS mineral resource activities. For example, the Plan highlights the greater emphasis to be placed on mineral-environmental assessments that provide predictions of the environmental consequences of mineral development as one consideration for land-use planning. It also calls for greater emphasis on research supporting mitigation of environmental impacts related to extraction and use of mineral resources. The USGS requested that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct a study to (1) evaluate the MRSP Plan, and (2) provide recommendations as to how the Plan could be modified to improve its effectiveness in meeting the long-term needs of the nation. To conduct a review of the Plan, the NRC convened a panel that has expertise in mitigation of environmental impacts related to extraction and use of mineral resources, as well as in genesis, assessment, exploration, and development of mineral resources. The MRSP Plan is a logical and necessary continuation of objectives and programs related to mineral resource studies that began with the establishment of the USGS in 1879. Traditionally, USGS mineral resource activities have advanced understanding of the origin of mineral deposits, provided the basic geologic information needed for identifying new areas of mineral potential, and facilitated land-use planning by federal and state agencies. Today, the USGS is also conducting research on the environmental consequences of mineral

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

development because the nation's need for minerals must be balanced with environmentally sound methods for extraction. There are important national needs for mineral resource information that should be provided by the USGS. Moreover, the panel strongly endorses the scientific values of continued mineral resource research. The panel's confidence in the overall value of the MRSP reflects past mineral resource program successes, the conviction that important resource problems of national relevance will have to be addressed in the future, and the uniqueness of the USGS in terms of technical capability, scope, national jurisdiction, international cooperation, and credibility. The MRSP Plan describes important objectives and means to accomplish them. Among these objectives, the growing emphasis on research on the geochemical behavior of mineral deposits and the environmental implications of their development are properly emphasized. The success of the MRSP Plan will be best measured against clear statements of vision, mission, and objectives. Although implied in the Plan, these planning elements are not clearly stated. The external environment within which the MRSP operates has changed more rapidly and extensively than the program itself. This requires that the MRSP reexamine how it operates, why, and for whom. The MRSP plan was formulated during a period of major organizational changes in the USGS, and these changes should be reflected in the planning elements. The panel identified four general recommendations to improve and help direct future work. In addition, the panel presents a number of detailed recommendations regarding the four subprograms of the MRSP: assessments, mitigation studies, resource investigations, and information and technology transfer. The four general recommendations are: General Recommendation 1: The Plan should be modified to include new, clearly articulated statements of vision, mission, and objectives. General Recommendation 2: To fulfill its mission, the MRSP and its Plan should move away from an organizational culture dominated by self-direction and independent research toward one that also embraces projects developed through collaboration with users.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

General Recommendation 3: The MRSP should place more emphasis on maintaining and continuing to develop its core competence in mineral deposit research and minerals-related environmental research in order to anticipate and respond to future national needs for mineral resource information. General Recommendation 4: The MRSP and its Plan should place greater emphasis on improving the mechanisms and procedures for comprehensive planning, setting priorities, and evaluating and enhancing performance, particularly through external reviews or advisory panels. The level of funding for the MRSP and the balance of funding among its subprograms deserves thorough review by the MRSP staff, users, and collaborative agencies and organizations. The General Recommendations are supplemented by more than twenty specific findings and recommendations about the Plan and the four subprograms that comprise the MRSP. The following issues emerge as significant themes among the specific findings and recommendations: the Plan does not give adequate consideration to the continuing national need for mineral resource supply as a rationale for all aspects of the MRSP; the panel perceives an imbalance between the level of effort placed on quantitative assessment of undiscovered mineral deposits versus the level of effort placed on detailed mapping and data collection; the panel finds that basic research on geochemical and geological processes related to ore formation is a prerequisite for credible mineral resource estimates and environmental assessments; the panel recommends substantive changes in the Mitigation Studies Subprogram.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

4

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

5

1 Framework for the Study

CONTEXT Over the past 150 years, mineral production in the United States has had a dramatic effect on the economy, westward expansion and statehood, land-use patterns, environmental quality, and lifestyles of the nation and its citizens. Since the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established in 1879, it has been actively involved in mineral issues. The first Director of the USGS, Clarence King, emphasized geologic research to support the discovery and development of mineral deposits to meet the growing national demand for mineral resources. U.S. mineral demand in 1996 is vastly greater than it was in 1879 and thus the needs emphasized by Director King remain relevant. However, beginning in the early 1970s, demands for environmental protection have grown. As the nation's population has increased, so also has the difficulty of choosing among and managing competing land uses. Today, there is an expanding awareness of the potential environmental consequences of unmitigated mineral exploration and development. To meet the widening scope of mineral resource issues, geoscience studies have become increasingly complex and interdisciplinary. In making land-use decisions it may be necessary to make trade-offs among potentially competing objectives—such as mineral development, wilderness designation, and recreation—that are difficult to articulate and even more difficult to measure quantitatively. Congress directed the USGS to prepare a program plan for its mineral resource activities. The House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior states:

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

6

The Committee directs the Survey to prepare a program plan that explains the objectives and implementation strategies of the Mineral Resource Surveys budget sub-activity. The program plan should address the interrelationships among the resource assessment, environmental investigation, research, and information components of the program; should identify the major users of mineral resource information developed by the Survey; should provide a thorough explanation of how the Survey's research is provided to and utilized by other federal agencies to manage the nation's lands and resources; and should provide estimated expenditures for the principal activities for which the Survey undertakes research (House Report 103-551, p. 42).

The U.S. Geological Survey has completed the Mineral Resource Surveys Program (MRSP) Plan requested by Congress, herein referred to as the Plan (Appendix A). The five-year Plan outlines changes in direction of the USGS mineral resource activities that reflect new priorities in the post-Cold War era. The Plan represents a significant departure from the past, and implementation of the Plan is resulting in significant changes in the direction of USGS mineral resource activities. The MRSP Plan suffers from the fact that it was formulated and evaluated during a period of major transition within the USGS. The transition involved significant staff reductions, a major reorganization of the Geologic Division, shifts in program emphasis, leadership changes, and reductions in analytical facilities. Figure 1-1 shows that staffing levels in the USGS's Geologic Division have dropped by 43 percent since 1985, with the sharpest decrease in the past two years. The MRSP staff has been reduced by an even larger percentage than that of the Geologic Division. In the past two years alone, the MRSP staff has fallen by 49 percent, from 511 full time equivalents in FY 1994 to 260 in FY 1996. The U.S. Bureau of Mines was closed and its minerals information activities were transferred to the USGS. The National Biological Service is being merged with the USGS. Some of these organizational changes have had a great negative impact on the morale of MRSP employees and on their ability to successfully execute the Plan. The

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

7

FIGURE 1-1 Staffing levels in the USGS's Geologic Division and MRSP. Since 1994, the Geologic Division staff has dropped by about 27 percent and the MRSP staff has fallen by 49 percent. SOURCE: Eaton, 1996, and unpublished data provided by the USGS.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

8

changes present new opportunities and challenges that need to be reflected in the planning elements. CHARGE TO THE PANEL The USGS requested that the National Research Council (NRC) evaluate the Plan and recommend improvements. The charge to the NRC consists of two separate objectives, each with subordinate questions: (1) Evaluate the Plan of the Mineral Resource Surveys Program in terms of the nation's long-term needs for minerals research and information, the completeness and balance of the program, and the scientific significance, credibility, and relevance of the overall program. • Does the Plan address the nation's needs in mineral resources, both present-day and long-term? • What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities, and who are the appropriate customers for the USGS MRSP? • Does the USGS MRSP duplicate the activities of other federal programs with responsibilities related to mineral resources? • Are the program priorities, products, and audience appropriate to the goals and objectives of the Plan? • Are the level, scope, and balance of research in the Plan sufficient to provide a scientific basis for informed decision-making and to build a scientific foundation for the future? (2) Provide recommendations as to how the Plan could be modified to improve its effectiveness in meeting the long-term needs of the nation. • What are future research needs, activities, and opportunities? • What criteria should be established to evaluate the appropriateness and priority of suggested MRSP activities? • What areas of scientific expertise will be needed by the MRSP to effectively respond to future issues?

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

9

This report addresses the objectives and questions in the following manner. Chapter 2 evaluates the MRSP Plan and makes recommendations for the four subprograms. Chapter 3 provides General Recommendations for the entire MRSP. The specific questions presented above are addressed throughout the report, and Appendix C is a guide to sections in the report where responses to specific questions can be found. DESCRIPTION OF THE MRSP PLAN The MRSP Plan contains a set of activities designed “to describe the occurrence, quality, and quantity of mineral-resources, to understand the fundamental processes that create and modify them, and to develop predictive models that provide understanding of the nation's mineral-resource endowment and the potential environmental consequences of its development” (MRSP Plan, p. 1). The Plan does not address oil, gas, coal, or nuclear fuels as these energy resources are covered by other USGS and Department of the Interior programs. Implementation of the Plan is resulting in major changes in the direction of USGS mineral resource activities. The Plan highlights the greater emphasis to be placed on: • Mineral-environmental assessments that provide predictions of the environmental consequences of mineral development as one consideration for land-use planning. • Research supporting mitigation of environmental impacts related to extraction and use of resources. • Assessments of aggregate, sand and gravel resources needed for urban development and renewal of the nation's infrastructure. • Timely, useful, and efficient transfer of minerals information to diverse users. Research and information activities in the Plan are proposed to be conducted under four complementary, interrelated subprograms: (1) Assessments, (2) Mitigation Studies, (3) Resource Investigations, and (4) Information and Technology Transfer. The executive summary of the Plan (Appendix A) provides a brief explanation of the four subprograms, and

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

10

additional information is provided in Chapter 2. Each subprogram is divided into components, and each component is further divided into elements (Figure 1-2). The budgets for the subprograms and components are shown in Table 1-1 and Figure C of Appendix A. The most significant changes are an increase in the budget for the Mitigation Studies Subprogram and a decrease in the budget for the Resource Investigations Subprogram. The budgets for the remaining two subprograms—Assessments and Information and Technology Transfer—show little change. The four subprograms are designed to reflect perceived national needs, and funding is readjusted annually within the MRSP in order to better address the major minerals issues facing the nation. The Plan is presented as a framework for fundamental research and applied scientific projects to be conducted over the next five years. Potential new projects will be evaluated as to consistency with the goals of the MRSP. GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND NATIONAL MINERALS NEEDS Most nations have government-supported geological agencies, commonly referred to as geological surveys, that are counterparts of the Geologic Division of the USGS. The common denominator in the missions of the major national geological surveys is the provision of geoscience information needed by nations to aid in managing resources, ensuring environmental quality, contributing to economic development, and promoting the safety and security of their citizens. Most national geological surveys are undergoing major changes in response to pressures to reduce costs and make their programs more relevant to societal needs (Appendix D). Although there are differences in emphasis and priority among mission components, the provision of information needed for the assurance of an adequate supply of mineral resources remains central to the missions of most national geological surveys. The mission of the USGS is to provide information that will: • mitigate losses resulting from national disasters; • help manage the nation's water, energy, and mineral resources;

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

11

TABLE 1-1 Budget for MRSP subprograms and components based on FY 1995 appropriation (in millions of dollars). YR1

YR2

YR3

YR4

YR5

Resource and Environmental Assessments

20.61

20.16

19.71

19.26

19.26

Assessment Protocols and Methods

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Total

21.51

21.06

20.61

20.16

20.16

Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines

2.24

2.69

3.14

4.03

4.03

Studies in Support of Remediation

2.69

2.69

2.69

3.14

3.14

Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits

4.03

4.48

4.93

4.93

4.93

Total

8.96

9.86

10.76

12.10

12.10

Mineral-Resource Frontiers

3.58

3.36

2.91

2.24

2.24

Minderal-Deposit Studies

3.14

2.91

2.69

2.24

2.24

Cooperative Industry and International Investigations

0.45

0.45

0.67

0.90

0.90

Total

7.17

6.72

6.27

5.38

5.38

Data Bases and Information Analysis

4.93

4.93

4.93

4.48

4.48

Information and Technology Transfer

2.24

2.24

2.24

2.69

2.69

Total

7.17

7.17

7.17

7.17

7.17

Mineral Resource Surveys Program Total

44.81

44.81

44.81

44.81

44.81

Assessments Subprogram

Mitigation Studies Subprogram

Resource Investigations Subprogram

Information and Technology Transfer Subprogram

SOURCE: MRSP Plan, Appendix B.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

12

FIGURE 1-2 Organization of the (a) Assessments Subprogram; (b) Mitigation Studies Subprogram; (c) Resource Investigations Subprogram; and (d) Information and Technology Transfer Subprogram. SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, 1995.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

13

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

14

• enhance and protect the quality of the environment; and • contribute to the nation's economic and physical development; thereby improving the safety, health, and well-being of the people (USGS mission statement, Appendix E). Although the MRSP is most closely associated with the second bullet of the USGS mission statement (“help manage the nation's water, energy, and mineral resources”), it is important to note that the program also addresses other elements of the USGS mission statement. For example, the Mitigation Studies Subprogram is directly relevant to the third bullet (“enhance and protect the quality of the environment”), and both the Assessments Subprogram and the Resource Investigations Subprogram are relevant to the fourth bullet (“contribute to the nation's economic and physical development”). The MRSP is only a small part of the USGS. It is a focus of scientific concentration within a universe of interlocking and interdependent scientific activities. Just as there are no discrete boundaries within the earth sciences, there are no discrete scientific boundaries that separate the MRSP from other programs within the USGS. Thus, in evaluating the Plan, the panel was cognizant that the MRSP is not a stand-alone program. A starting point for considering national needs for mineral resource research and information is the recognition that the United States is an important producer and consumer of minerals (Sidebar 1.1). As a consequence, the country faces important decisions involving the supply of raw materials, land use, and environmental protection. Land management agencies develop land-use plans that attempt to reconcile competing land-use alternatives, while recognizing the environmental implications of each. The development of mineral deposits requires environmentally sound methods of exploration and extraction, and mineral development increasingly must be balanced with alternative land-use considerations. Our ability to make informed decisions about these issues depends on having current, accurate, and unbiased scientific information on known and potential mineral resources, and on the environmental implications of their development. In the broadest sense,

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

SIDEBAR 1.1 U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTION The United States is an important producer and consumer of minerals. Consumers generally obtain resources on the world market as cheaply as possible. Numerous natural, technical, economic, and political factors dictate where mining occurs—in which geologic province, in which climatic or ecological environment, and within which political boundary. A disproportionately large share of world production of any mineral commodity comes from a few very large deposits. The United States is fortunate in possessing a number of these large deposits commonly referred to as giant or world-class deposits. The U.S. possesses giant ore deposits of copper, gold, lead, molybdenum, silver, zinc, and other commodities, particularly in the western states and Alaska. Domestic resources throughout the country supply much of U.S. needs for many metals and most construction raw materials; some metals, such as aluminum, manganese, and tungsten, come primarily from foreign ores (Figure 1-3). The magnitude of the U.S. mineral industry is illustrated by both production and exploration activities. For example, the U.S. currently produces approximately 20 percent of the total copper mined in the world (Figure 1-4). Essentially all this production, plus copper recovered through recycling and a relatively small amount of net imports, is needed to meet domestic demands for refined copper (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995a). The U.S. also produces a large amount of gold with an annual gross value of more than $4 billion. Production in recent years has far outstripped that of any previous gold rush (Figure 1-5). The U.S. currently produces approximately 14 percent of the annual world production (Figure 1-4). This production not only meets domestic demands, it also provides for exports (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995b). The value of construction raw materials significantly exceeds the value of metals produced in the United States. In 1994, construction sand and gravel, crushed stone, and cement were produced from over 10,000 extractive operations (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995a). Because of high costs for transporting rock products from quarries to construction sites, sources tend to be local. All 50 states have sand and gravel

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

15

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

16

quarries and most have stone quarries that meet local and regional demands. Exploration for mineral resources in the United States continues at a high level and major discoveries continue to be made. Recent examples include the Goldstrike and Pipeline gold deposits in Nevada, the Red Dog zinc deposit in Alaska, and significant additions to known ore bodies at the Morenci and Ray copper deposits in Arizona and the Chino copper deposit in New Mexico. Figure 1-6 illustrates U.S. and worldwide exploration expenditures from 1991 to 1995. The development of new favorable mineral exploration and mining statutes in several foreign countries, the recognition of underexplored favorable geological terranes outside the United States, and increasingly restrictive mining and environmental statutes in the United States have encouraged many companies to increase operations abroad. As the favorable terranes are explored and international statutes become more uniform, the United States can be expected to regain a higher proportion of exploration expenditures.

the nation requires an unbiased federal agency to provide reliable information on mineral resources to: • • • • •

promote wise land-use management, promote public health and safety, preserve and improve environmental quality, assure resource supply and contribute to national security, and sustain prosperity and improve the quality of life. APPROPRIATE FEDERAL FUNCTIONS IN MEETING NATIONAL MINERAL NEEDS

Responding to its charge, the panel first identified three specific functions of a minerals program it considers appropriate for the MRSP. The first is to supply unbiased information related to mineral resources. Such information is useful to federal and state agencies in carrying out their regulatory and administrative responsibilities. Although state

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

17

FIGURE 1-3 U.S. net import reliance for selected mineral commodities(data from U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995a).

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

18

FIGURE 1-4 U.S. production and exploration as percentages of world totals in 1994: (a) copper production (data from U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995a), (b) gold production (data from U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995b), and (c) nonfuel mineral exploration (data from Metals Economics Group, 1995).

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

19

FIGURE 1-5 Historic U.S. gold production (modified from Dobra and Thomas, 1995).

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

20

FIGURE 1-6 Worldwide and U.S. nonfuel mineral exploration expenditures for selected companies, modified from Metals Economics Group (1995), which estimated that the 154 companies represented by these data account for approximately 75 percent of worldwide exploration.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

21

geological surveys play an important role in generating and disseminating information related to mineral resources, the federal government has a unique role in addressing issues of national jurisdiction and significance. The information is also useful to the private sector in fostering mineral exploration and development, and in planning for environmental protection. However, the private sector is unlikely to develop this basic information because the cost can not be justified. Furthermore, much information generated by the private sector is customarily proprietary and unavailable for public use. A second function is advisory, whereby scientific advice and analysis are provided to other government agencies, such as the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to help meet their needs for mineral resource information on lands they administer. The USGS has carried out such an advisory role for many years and is widely respected for its balanced advice and the scientific integrity of its information and interpretations. A third function involves the conduct of basic research on mineral resources. Research is the basis on which the other two functions, advice and information, are founded. In addition, basic research addresses the strategic needs of a nation by investigating resources that are uneconomic today but are technically recoverable if needed in the event of a crisis. Basic research would undoubtedly be underfunded if left solely to the private sector, in part because the returns on investments in basic research are not necessarily captured by the organization that conducts the research. Commonly, basic research benefits society at large and public funding is necessary to prevent underinvestment in research. Many nations have found that public investments in research on mineral resources is best accomplished through a combination of efforts conducted by universities and by government agencies that have national jurisdiction, long-term continuity, large and multidisciplinary teams of scientists, and highly specialized facilities. Many state geological surveys conduct basic research on mineral resources which complements the work of USGS. All three functions are considered legitimate responsibilities for a federal agency, such as the USGS. A variety of other federally managed options for these functions are available, at least in principle, including government grants or contracts to universities, private firms or state agencies, and tax incentives to stimulate industrial research. The

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

22

existence of such functions in geological surveys worldwide, however, suggests that these functions are widely considered to be appropriate for national governments. The balance among these functions will depend on user requirements and will vary over time (Appendix D).

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

23

2 Evaluation of the MRSP Plan and Recommendations for Subprograms

INTRODUCTION The panel commends the MRSP Plan for the comprehensiveness and relevance of its subprograms. The panel is cognizant of the successes and reputation of the USGS in mineral resource science. USGS research on mineral deposits has attracted some of the finest geoscientists in the nation, and they have built a reputation for scientific excellence in both the national and international community. The MRSP Plan is a logical and necessary continuation of objectives and ideas related to mineral resource studies that began with the establishment of the USGS in 1879. Traditionally, USGS mineral-resource activities have advanced understanding of the origin of mineral deposits, provided the basic geologic information needed for identifying new areas of mineral potential, and facilitated land-use planning by federal and state agencies. Today, the USGS is also conducting scientific research on the environmental consequences of mineral development because the nation's need for minerals must be balanced with environmentally sound methods for extraction. The panel believes that there are national needs for mineral resource research and information that should be met by a federal geological agency (see discussion in Chapter 1), specifically the USGS's MRSP. The panel's confidence in the overall value of the MRSP reflects past program successes, the conviction that resource problems of national relevance will have to be addressed in the future, and the uniqueness of the USGS in terms of technical capability, scope, national jurisdiction, international cooperation, and credibility. The scientific contributions of the USGS mineral resource studies are many. Striking examples include the mineral deposits research that

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

24

has led to the characterization of major deposits in the United States (and overseas), and understanding of ore-forming processes. The USGS has produced excellent descriptions of ore deposits that have proved useful for environmental mitigation and remediation of abandoned mine lands, as well as for mineral exploration. Mineral resource assessments and mineral-environmental assessments conducted by the MRSP also have contributed to land use decisions by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which together are responsible for managing approximately 740 million acres of federal lands. The MRSP Plan contains subprograms and components that have the potential to achieve results that are as significant as past accomplishments of the MRSP and its forerunners. The MRSP Plan describes important objectives and means to accomplish them. Among these objectives, the growing emphasis on research on the geochemical behavior of mineral deposits in response to weathering and the environmental implications of their development are properly emphasized. ASSESSMENTS SUBPROGRAM Mineral resource and related mineral-environmental assessments are appropriate activities for the federal government and specifically for the MRSP of the USGS. In simplest terms, a mineral resource assessment estimates the quantity of undiscovered mineral resource that is expected to occur within a designated area. The general uses of these assessments, primarily by the federal and state land management agencies, are well documented in the MRSP Plan and were confirmed by numerous presentations to the panel. Initially, national and regional resource assessments were driven by concerns for strategic mineral supply as related to national security and by the need to stimulate domestic exploration for particular commodities, such as uranium. In recent years, mineral resource assessments have been driven increasingly by concerns for land management. In addition, the need to understand the environmental consequences of mineral resource development places new demands on the Assessments Subprogram.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

25

The panel respects the USGS for responding to the needs of the federal land-management agencies to understand environmental consequences of mineral resource development. Nonetheless, the panel notes that the rationale in the MRSP Plan for continued mineral resource assessments does not include the important aspect of mineral resource supply as a continuing, legitimate national need. .

Evaluation of Components Resource and Environmental Assessments Component The panel understands the rationale presented in the MRSP Plan for building on traditional mineral resource assessments to incorporate environmental data and interpretations. However, it is not clear from the MRSP Plan how this process will be accomplished, nor is it clear what exact relationships will exist between the traditional resource assessments and the new mineral-environmental assessments. For example, the Plan calls for a prototype National MineralEnvironmental Assessment for selected deposit types to be undertaken in FY 1999 and 2000. The panel is concerned about the potential uses of this assessment because of the lack of clarity regarding the level of detail that will be employed in the work and the map scale to be used in the presentation of results. Insufficient detail and inappropriate map scales may leave the predictive aspects of the assessments vulnerable to legitimate scientific criticism. This concern also is identified in the following evaluation of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, and is a topic that the proposed advisory panel, suggested in General Recommendation 4, could help to resolve. Users of mineral resource assessments who addressed the panel repeatedly stressed their needs for detailed geologic maps (at scales of 1:24,000 to 1:100,000), descriptions of known ore deposits, geochemical sampling, geophysical surveys, and other basic geoscience data. Such data are also particularly attractive to many other customers, including industry and academia. Geologic mapping at scales of 1:24,000 to 1:100,000 generally provides the context that is necessary to identify major hydrothermal systems, geologic structures, and types of ore deposits that occur in a

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

26

given area. Such detailed investigations are the hallmark of classic USGS studies of mineral districts, such as Terlingua (Yates and Thompson, 1959), Mother Lode (Knopf, 1929), and Comstock (Becker, 1882). However, many recent USGS mineral resource assessments have lacked this level of detail, and uncertainties remain regarding locations of areas permissible for the occurrence of different types of ore deposits. Industry routinely conducts detailed geologic mapping at scales of 1:10,000 and larger to help identify specific targets for explorations drilling and to help design mining plans. In its role of assessing mineral resources and in beginning to address the environmental consequences of extracting these resources, however, the USGS (and the land management agencies) needs geologic and alteration mapping scales generally in the range of 1:24,000 to 1:100,000. In the case of mineral-environmental assessments, it is likely that the insufficient scientific detail of investigations will not support the large map scale at which the National Assessments are to be presented. Therefore it seems logical for the MRSP staff to accumulate experience and data on specific sites before attempting to conduct such assessments at a national level. The recent MRSP work at Summitville, Colorado provides an example of useful site-specific investigations. Similar issues of map scale have been confronted by the USGS's National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), and it may be useful for MRSP and NAWQA to address these issues jointly. The panel is concerned that the MRSP Plan does not discuss in detail the linkages and possible overlaps between work on mineral-environmental assessments and the Mitigation Studies Subprogram—in particular, how geoenvironmental models and baseline geochemistry will be formulated into environmental assessments. According to the Plan, a geoenvironmental model for a given type of mineral deposit characterizes the environmental behavior of rocks, soils, sediments, and waters prior to mining. It also describes and predicts the environmental effects likely to result from mining and processing of metals from such a deposit—the character and size of mine workings, the character and mass of waste products, and the processes of their interactions with the environment. At present, geoenvironmental models are available for only a few deposit types. Recognizing that the MRSP staff will be developing protocols for mineral-environmental assessments over the

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

27

next five years, the panel urges that the MRSP staff pay particular attention to the known variability in ecological, mineralogical, geochemical, geographic, and climatic parameters that exist among individual deposits within a particular ore deposit type. The unique characteristics of individual deposits make the predictive aspect of mineral-environmental assessments risky, particularly at regional scales. For example, a mineral deposit in a mountainous region with high precipitation may present very different environmental issues compared to a similar deposit in an arid region with low relief. This is another topic on which the proposed advisory panel (General Recommendation 4) could be helpful. One of the most significant changes in the Plan is a “greater emphasis on assessments of non-metallic resources (such as sand, gravel, and construction aggregate) needed for urban development and infrastructure renewal” (p. 11). The fiscal year 1997 USGS budget request includes a major new cross-divisional initiative in this area, and the Plan should be modified to incorporate this significant development. Assessment Protocols and Methods Component The panel recognizes the state-of-the-art status of the USGS three-part quantitative assessment method. It understands the need for continued development of numerical or quantitative techniques. The panel also understands that the development of assessment methodologies should continue as a fundamental or basic research function. However, it is important to maintain an appropriate balance between the needs of users and the level of research and development devoted to quantitative methods. For example, some representatives of federal land management agencies with which the panel met (primarily BLM and USFS) felt that in many cases qualitative assessments (“high–medium–low”) are adequate for their needs. Although this point has been exhaustively debated (Harris and Rieber, 1993; Barton and others, 1995), the panel finds that the uncertainty inherent in estimating the number, tonnage, and value of undiscovered mineral deposits is so high that the costs and time delays resulting from a highly quantitative approach are not always warranted in order to meet the needs of the land managers. The panel recognizes that there may be other needs that

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

28

require quantitative assessments, but these are not articulated clearly in the MRSP Plan. It is important for the staff of the MRSP to understand the nature of the land-management decisions, and for the staff of the land management agencies to understand the strengths, limitations, and uncertainties of the mineral-resource and mineral-environmental assessments. On the basis of interviews with officials from the Forest Service and BLM, the panel finds that some of the requested and special-purpose assessments described in the MRSP Plan may not require quantitative results. Although the panel's sampling of users was limited, the diversity of opinions expressed on quantitative assessments is noteworthy. Users and interested parties must be full participants in assessments beginning with project design and extending through implementation. Understanding customer needs is vital to determining the map scale, level of detail, and methodology for an assessment. Likewise, the customer needs to understand that assessment methodology is evolving with time, and that different approaches have different strengths and limitations. Each assessment should be tailored to the specific customer need or objective. At the same time, the MRSP, with its responsibility to assure quality work products and set standards for consistency and comparability, ultimately must determine and defend the level of scientific effort, including appropriate fundamental studies, needed to support a desired level of confidence for an assessment. The panel recognizes the linkage between the Assessments Subprogram and other subprograms, especially Resource Investigations and Mitigation Studies. Specifically, studies of the origin of mineral deposits conducted by the Resource Investigations Subprogram, and studies of the geochemical behavior of mineral deposits conducted by the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, are required for proper assessments. One of the responsibilities of MRSP scientists and managers is to educate the users of the assessments about the importance and relevance of research on the genesis and geochemical behavior of mineral deposits. For example, a better understanding of the geologic time period(s), structural/tectonic settings, and paleodepths that favor the development of Carlin-type gold deposits would lead to more accurate assessments of gold resources in the Great Basin.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

29

Subprogram Recommendations The panel recommends the following changes and modifications to the Assessments Subprogram: Recommendation A The MRSP should incorporate data and invite expertise from outside the USGS, to the greatest extent practical and constructive, particularly from industry, academia, and state agencies. The panel is concerned that the USGS in the past has not incorporated appropriate external data and utilized external expertise in preparation of its assessments. It appreciates the need for the MRSP to maintain rigorous scientific integrity and impartiality in the conduct of resource assessments; nevertheless, the panel finds that external input can be received and used without compromising the assessment process. As a possible model, consider the USGS procedures for oil and gas assessments, which incorporate external expertise in response to recommendations in a 1991 National Research Council report (Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources: An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's 1989 Assessment Procedures). As was in the case for the USGS oil and gas assessments, it may be possible for the MRSP to obtain valuable guidance from professional societies and state geological surveys at little cost. Recommendation B The MRSP should rigorously document the specific contributions and impacts of past resource assessments related to land-management decisions. The panel strongly recommends that the MRSP publish a single document, written for the lay audience, which documents, explains, and discusses the usefulness of mineral resource assessments and their applications in land management. On the basis of testimony from federal land management agencies and others, the panel is concerned that assessments are not proving sufficiently useful in land-use decisions. It is critical to know whether the assessments are serving their intended purpose.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

30

Recommendation C Mineral resource assessments should be performed more efficiently, and the cost-savings should be directed to more fundamental investigations in other subprograms of the MRSP. The panel believes that assessments can be conducted more efficiently and still provide the information required by land management agencies. A good opportunity for improving efficiency seems to be through extensive discussion and planning with users to assure that the appropriate levels of new data collection and numerical estimation are selected for the particular task. Cost-savings achieved through increases in efficiency would enable the MRSP to transfer funds to other subprograms. The panel recognizes the need for investigations into fundamental processes as a basis for assessments (see also General Recommendation 3). Understanding how mineral deposits form in context with their host geological terranes (part of the Resource Investigations Subprogram) is vital to the credibility and accuracy of resource assessments. Similarly, understanding the geochemical behavior of mineral deposits and their impact on the environment, including geochemical backgrounds and baselines (parts of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram), is critical to credible mineral-environmental assessments. The panel recommends that, to the extent feasible, land management agencies be expected to pay for mineral resource and environmental assessments. MITIGATION STUDIES SUBPROGRAM The panel commends the USGS for recognizing the importance of environmental protection and for inclusion of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram in the MRSP. However, the panel finds that the role for the MRSP in mitigation studies is not clear. In addition, certain components of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram are more oriented toward resource investigation than mitigation and might better be part of the Resource Investigations Subprogram (Figure 2-1). There is an appropriate federal role for components and elements of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, provided that the involvement is researchoriented and advisory in nature. There are also appropriate, but non-exclusive, USGS and MRSP roles for components and elements of

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

31

FIGURE 2-1 Proposed structure of the (a) Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines Subprogram, and (b) Resource and Environmental Investigations Subprogram.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

32

the Mitigation Studies Subprogram. However, universities, industry, and other divisions within the USGS can also contribute to the research-oriented components and elements under this subprogram. Since other federal agencies and industry will be applying the results of research conducted by the Mitigation Studies Subprogram to site-specific remediation problems, closer collaboration with the federal agencies that are charged with managing public lands (e.g., BLM and USFS) would ensure that the Mitigation Studies Subprogram research is meeting their needs (see General Recommendation 2). A broadly based external advisory panel would be able to guide the effective application of MRSP research to environmental issues at mines and other sites (see General Recommendation 4). Environmental behavior of mineral deposits refers to the natural and human-induced impact of mineral deposits on their surrounding environment. The USGS possesses considerable expertise in this field of research, which is increasingly relevant to solving national problems. There is an appropriate but non-exclusive role for the MRSP in this field. Several scientists in the MRSP and Water Resources Division (WRD) of the USGS have expertise in the environmental behavior of mineral deposits, especially as related to water chemistry, Both the MRSP and the WRD depend heavily on the availability of high quality geologic and topographic maps constructed at appropriate map scales. Through a well-defined, cross-divisional partnership with WRD and the USGS National Mapping Division (NMD), and through intradivision partnerships within the Geologic Division (GD), a successful interdisciplinary approach could be undertaken to understand the environmental behavior of mineral deposits. The MRSP could use these partnerships, for example, to improve and enhance aspects of the component Geoenvironmental Models of Mineral Deposits. The panel notes that recent collaborative efforts at Summitville and in the Upper Animas Basin in Colorado provide excellent examples of combined Geologic Division and Water Resources Division research. These studies could serve as a management model for future studies under the MRSP. Other federal agencies charged with resource management could apply the research to mitigation issues affecting public lands.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

33

Evaluation of Components Geochemical Backgrounds and Baseline Component The panel concluded that results from the Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines component of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram will become increasingly important in land use decisions. The Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines component should be elevated to subprogram status to reflect the national importance of this activity (Figure 2-1). Many other national geological surveys, including the Geological Survey of Canada and the British Geological Survey, place strong emphasis on similar types of programs. Information collected under baseline geochemical studies also has significant applications to public health and ecological issues. Baseline geochemical studies would focus on the specific environmental behavior of mineral resources, but would share many underlying similarities with the highly successful National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program in the Water Resources Division of the USGS. Research from both the NAWQA program and the Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines component explores the current state of the environment and provides a standard/measure against which future environmental perturbations— be they natural or anthropogenic—can be compared. In addition, MRSP research in this area will aim at distinguishing between anthropogenic and natural environmental impacts. Development of methods to discriminate between natural and anthropogenic geochemical anomalies associated with mineral deposits deserves a high priority as a research activity. The MRSP Plan places an appropriate emphasis on this field, which is the focus of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram element on Discrimination Between Natural and Mining-Related Geochemical Distributions. This subprogram element could support users in determining sources and concentrations of pre-mining geochemical distributions, and for assigning remediation responsibilities after mining has occurred. Determining geochemical backgrounds and baselines must be a multi-disciplinary effort involving geologists, aqueous geochemists, sedimentologists, hydrologists, and aquatic biologists. In the longer view, this suggested new subprogram could have expanded applications,

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

34

including applications to agriculture, land-use planning, and human health. Studies in Support of Remediation Component The second component of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, Studies in Support of Remediation, contains elements for which the MRSP role is not clearly defined. The USGS staff has little experience in designing or conducting remediation studies. One of the objectives of the Studies in Support of Remediation component is to “investigate the geologic and geochemical processes that affect mining and remediation plans and technologies so that they can be adapted and improved to minimize environmental changes” (MRSP Plan, p. 27). The adaptation and improvement of remedial technologies should be conducted by programs other than the MRSP. Entities such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other federal and state agencies, universities, industry, and consultants could or can more appropriately develop and implement technology-oriented programs. Therefore, in the panel's view, the MRSP role for this component should be reduced to “investigate the geologic and geochemical processes that affect mining and remediation.” Further, this more limited activity properly belongs under the Resource Investigations Subprogram, not the Mitigation Studies Subprogram. Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits Component The panel finds that the third component of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, Environmental Behavior of Minerals Deposits, should be placed under the Resource Investigations Subprogram (Figure 2-1). The panel suggests that the title of the Resource Investigation Subprogram then be expanded to “Resource and Environmental Investigations” to reflect the inclusion of this component, which addresses the environmental geochemistry of mineral deposits. The Geoenvironmental Models of Mineral Deposits element of the Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits component has the potential to contribute to the solution of important environmental

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

35

problems. However, the validity of certain geoenvironmental models has been questioned by potential users who gave presentations to the panel. One question concerning the models is that site-specific predictions of the environmental behavior of mineral deposits are not sufficiently accurate using generalized characteristics of mineral deposits. For example, zones of hydrothermal alteration around ore deposits should be mapped in detail (generally at scales of 1:24,000 or larger) before site-specific predictions are made. Improved communication with users will determine the level of detail and appropriate map scale that will improve the utility of these models (see General Recommendation 2). Similar concern regarding map scales is discussed above under Assessments Subprogram Evaluation. Another question about the models concerns the physical and chemical variability among deposits of a particular type and the ability of the models to accurately predict releases of chemical components from mineral deposits. Staff of MRSP and WRD should collaborate to address this issue. Additional joint research efforts in acid drainage prediction and metal leaching by MRSP and WRD scientists will improve the accuracy and validity of the geoenvironmental models (see General Recommendation 4). Subprogram Recommendations The panel recommends the following changes and modifications to the Mitigation Studies Subprogram: Recommendation D Merge two components of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, namely, (1) Studies in Support of Remediation, and (2) Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits, into the Resource Investigations Subprogram. A suggested name for this combined subprogram is “Resource and Environmental Investigations Subprogram” (Figure 2-1). Recommendation E Elevate the Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines component to subprogram status. Emphasize such elements as Discrimination Between Natural and Mining-Related Geochemical

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

36

Distributions, to reflect the growing national and international importance of this activity. If recommendations D and E are followed, there will no longer be a subprogram entitled Mitigation Studies but there will be a new subprogram entitled Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines (Figure 2-1). Recommendation F Increase collaboration with WRD staff to address such issues as chemical releases from mineral deposits, acid drainage prediction, and metal leaching. Recommendation G Discontinue activities directed at the adaptation and improvement of remedial technologies, a part of the Studies in Support of Remediation component. These activities should be conducted by organizations other than MRSP, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other federal and state agencies, universities, and the private sector. Redirect funds from the Studies in Support of Remediation to fundamental investigations in other parts of the new Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines and Resource and Environmental Investigations Subprograms. Recommendation H Use a multi-disciplinary approach to determining geochemical backgrounds and baselines by collaborating with other scientists such as microbiologists, soil scientists, aqueous geochemists, sedimentologists, hydrologists, and aquatic biologists. A multidisciplinary approach should also be used in other parts of the MRSP where appropriate. RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS SUBPROGRAM The panel finds that there is an appropriate role for the USGS in the Resource Investigations Subprogram because this research addresses national needs and other research organizations do not have the national jurisdiction, facilities, expertise, and commitment required to conduct research on mineral resources at the necessary scale and scope. The

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

37

MRSP is the logical federal program under which to conduct such research on mineral deposits. This research addresses principally the characteristics and interpretation of mineral deposits. Such research is critical to the success of the mineral resource assessments and studies in support of remediation. USGS publications on mineral resources, including Professional Papers and Bulletins, have provided invaluable information for a multitude of users (e.g., BLM, USFS, industry, state agencies, and academia) for more than a century. Results from basic and applied research under the Resource Investigations Subprogram now provide essential scientific information for components and elements of other subprograms. Examples include Geoenvironmental Models of Mineral Deposits (Mitigation Studies Subprogram), Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines (Mitigation Studies Subprogram), and Resource and Environmental Assessments (Assessments Subprogram). The panel finds that the Resource Investigation Subprogram is an appropriate and important activity, and that the proposed decrease in funding for this subprogram will adversely impact the MRSP and its customers. Evaluation of Components As noted under the Mitigation Studies Subprogram Evaluation, the panel recommends that two components from the Mitigation Studies Subprogram be moved into the Resource Investigations Subprogram. To reflect this change, the panel also suggests that the title of the Resource Investigations Subprogram be expanded to “Resource and Environmental Investigations” (Figure 2-1). Mineral-Resource Frontiers and Mineral-Deposit Studies Components Two components in the Resource Investigations Subprogram represent long-standing USGS contributions to the field of mineral deposits research: Mineral-Resource Frontiers and Mineral-Deposit Studies. The panel strongly endorses undiminished continuation of this basic research. In addition to research opportunities discussed in the MRSP Plan, several grand challenges that might warrant consideration

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

38

are listed in Sidebar 2.1. An external advisory panel should work with MRSP personnel to help select and define research priorities, among these and other topics, that would guide project selection (see General Recommendation 4). Cooperative Industry and International Investigations Component The third component in this subprogram, Cooperative Industry and International Investigations, is designed to be responsive to requests from industry and foreign governments, and it is less oriented toward basic research than the other two components This component shares certain similarities with the Requested and Special Purpose Assessments element of the Assessments Subprogram. The appropriate location for the Cooperative Industry and International Investigations component within the program should be evaluated jointly by an external advisory panel and MRSP personnel (see General Recommendation 4, Chapter 3). One suggestion by the panel is that the Cooperative Industry and International Investigations component be replaced by a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) system, whereby industrial and foreign government users would contribute toward needed MRSP research. The Geological Survey of Canada's (GSC) Industrial Partners Program is a potential model for industry-MRSP joint efforts. The GSC program involves cost-shared research projects that are conducted jointly by GSC and industry partners (Appendix D). The apparent overall reduction in international activities, including information gathering, analysis, and scientific studies is ill-advised. The panel urges reconsideration of these decisions. In some cases, such as research on giant (world-class) ore deposits, it is difficult or impossible to conduct serious investigations without study of global examples. In addition, the acquisition of resource and geological terrane information in foreign countries can provide essential information and expertise that are needed to evaluate and analyze likely global patterns of mineral supply. International research is an important activity of many other national geological surveys.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

39

SIDEBAR 2.1 SELECTED GRAND CHALLENGES IN MINERAL DEPOSIT RESEARCH (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Understand the origins of giant ore deposits and their relation to smaller deposits. A disproportionately large share of world production of any mineral commodity comes from a few very large deposits, and the United States is fortunate in possessing a number of these large deposits commonly referred to as giants. Determine the timing and duration of ore-forming and ore-modifying processes. There is great promise for rapid advances in this area of research due to recent advances in analytical techniques. Better information about the timing and duration of ore-forming processes will improve mineral resource assessments and mineral exploration. Understand low-temperature thermodynamics and kinetics of waterrock interactions in order to predict the environmental behavior of mineral deposits. This area of research is relevant to environmental stewardship in active mines and to remediation of abandoned mine sites. Conduct continental reconstruction research that investigates the relations of ore deposits to crustal evolution. This area of research is applicable to mineral assessments and may prove useful for locating buried ore deposits.

Subprogram Recommendations The panel recommends the following changes and modifications to the Resource Investigations Subprogram: Recommendation I Merge two components of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram, namely, (1) Studies in Support of Remediation, and (2) Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits, into the Resource Investigations Subprogram, as recommended in the section on Mitigation Studies (see Recommendation D above). A suggested name for this

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

40

combined subprogram is the “Resource and Environmental Investigations Subprogram.” The rationale for this recommendation is discussed in greater detail in the evaluation of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram. This recommendation is repeated here because it effects both the Mitigation Studies Subprogram and the Resource Investigations Subprogram. Recommendation J Revitalize the core competence to conduct basic and applied research on mineral deposits under the Resource Investigations Subprogram, which provides essential information for other MRSP subprograms and numerous users. A continued decline in funding for this subprogram proposed in the Plan will adversely impact the entire MRSP. For example, research on the origins of mineral deposits and the age of mineralization is required to improve mineral resource assessments. Likewise, an understanding of the low-temperature thermodynamics and kinetics of water–rock interactions is essential to predicting the environmental behavior of mineral deposits. The panel recommends that basic research elements in the MRSP should be emphasized, but internal competition for funds and better priority setting methods should be developed. Recommendation K Continue basic research conducted under two components in the Resource Investigations Subprogram—Mineral-Resource Frontiers and Mineral-Deposit Studies—such as low-temperature chemistry of water-rock interaction, timing of ore-forming processes, origin of giant ore deposits, and ore deposit evolution as related to continental reconstruction. Recommendation L Evaluate the feasibility of replacing the Cooperative Industry and International Investigations element with a CRADA system, whereby industrial and foreign government users would provide funding toward needed MRSP research. The Geological Survey of Canada's Industrial Partners Program is a potential model for industry-MRSP joint efforts (Appendix D). This evaluation could be conducted by an external advisory panel (see General Recommendation 4).

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

41

Recommendation M The MRSP should be empowered, within budgetary limitations, to conduct selective mineral-deposits research in foreign terranes. Such investigations should be conducted collaboratively with host-country agencies and scientists or as part of multi-partner international scientific programs. It should complement research on mineral resources and geological environments in the United States. INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SUBPROGRAM Evaluation of Components The panel strongly believes that activities related to information and technology transfer, including both the Data Bases and Information Analysis component and the Information and Technology Transfer component of the MRSP Plan, are appropriate and important for a mineral resource program in the USGS. In particular, the panel commends the MRSP Plan for its goal to make minerals information “easily accessible and in a format for effective use” by its customers. The Plan recognizes the value of digital formats and on-line access to its databases through information networks. Further, the panel commends the Plan for seeking to archive large data sets and make such information available to its users. However, several users who met with the panel stated that the information provided by MRSP is not always in a format that can be easily used, nor is it transferred in a timely manner. This was a particular concern for land management agencies when making land-use planning decisions. The Plan does not adequately address the relationship between the MRSP and USGS technology transfer programs. There is a need for greater internal consistency and standards for databases and technology transfer activities. The panel generally supports the specific objectives of the Plan (see pages 40 and 42), especially developing and maintaining databases in state-of-the-art formats (digital, on-line), facilitating the exchange of

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

42

information with users, providing timely information, and improving understanding by users of the significance and limitations of the information. An exception concerns the second objective of the component on Data Bases and Information Analysis, which is “to develop and improve GIS and other spatial analysis tools for scientific visualization and analysis” (p. 40). The panel is unsure how a minerals program can expect to contribute in this area, which would seem to be a field of active research in the domain of information and software specialists rather than a minerals program. Subprogram Recommendations The panel recommends the following changes and modifications to the Information and Technology Transfer Subprogram: Recommendation N The Plan should place greater emphasis on internal consistency and standardization in all aspects of databases and technology transfer. Presumably the USGS devotes considerable resources to these activities and it is important that MRSP activities complement USGS databases and technology transfer. Recommendation O The Plan should be modified to include activities recently transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) to the USGS. In particular, the Plan should recognize the value as well as overlaps in the Mine Information Location System (MILS) and Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) databases. The panel recognizes that the transfer of the USBM minerals information function to the USGS occurred after the MRSP Plan was drafted. Given that this function is logically related to the information and technology transfer subprogram of the MRSP, the Plan should be modified to include these activities. Recommendation P The Plan should not take on the task of software development for GIS technology but assign that responsibility to other departments in the USGS or obtain products from private vendors. Sources

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

43

outside the MRSP are developing GIS technology and standards more rapidly than the USGS's MRSP.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. EVALUATION OF THE MRSP PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBPROGRAMS

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

44

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

45

3 General Recommendations

In the previous chapter, the panel systematically evaluated each subprogram of the MRSP Plan and made recommendations specific to each subprogram. In this chapter, the panel considers the Plan more broadly and makes four General Recommendations on how the Plan as a whole might be improved. From the beginning of its study, the panel was conscious that the specific evaluations and recommendations it might make concerning the subprograms and elements of MRSP Plan would have to be placed in a broader context if they were to be effective. This broader context would need to consider such factors as: the long-term view of mineral resource investigations and their importance to the USGS mandate; the organizational and “cultural” changes that have been profoundly affecting most geological surveys (and other government agencies) in recent years, in the United States as well as in many other countries (Appendix D); the relations among MRSP subprograms and components, and between clients and users of MRSP products both within and outside of USGS; and finally although by no means least important, the formal articulation of MRSP's raison d'etre—in other words its vision, mission, and objectives. In light of these considerations, the panel concluded that a useful approach here would be to capture some of the major concerns relating to MRSP in a short list of General Recommendations, which are presented in the sections that follow. Each General Recommendation is followed by a series of supplemental, more detailed recommendations that can be correlated with the subprogram recommendations of Chapter 2.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

46

VISION, MISSION, AND OBJECTIVES

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 1 The Plan should be modified to include new, clearly articulated statements of vision, mission, and objectives.

The MRSP Plan was formulated during a period of major transition within the USGS. The transition involved staff reductions, shifts in program emphasis, and leadership changes. These organizational changes have had a great impact on the morale of MRSP employees and on their ability to successfully execute the Plan. The changes should be reflected in the planning elements. The adequacy and appropriateness of the MRSP are best measured against clear statements of vision, mission, and objectives for the program. Although implied in the Plan, these three planning elements are not clearly stated. For example, from information presented in the Plan, the vision might be stated as follows: “To achieve excellence in mineral resource research and information, and in communication with all appropriate constituencies and users so as to fully meet the public's needs for mineral resource information.” Such a vision should be conceived jointly by MRSP personnel and users. The mission of the MRSP is not explicitly stated but it is the panel's view that it should focus on all aspects of national needs for mineral resource information. Some aspects of national needs are referred to in the Plan, but they are not specifically addressed in a mission context. A comprehensive statement of the mission might read as follows: To meet user needs for mineral resource information for applications in: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Wise land-use management Public health and safety Protecting and improving environmental quality Mineral supply and national security Sustaining prosperity and improving quality of life.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

47

Objectives and performance measures should be developed to implement and achieve the vision and the mission. The objectives also should address operational matters such as limited budgets, user needs, and program priorities. The Plan could be improved by building a stronger connection between the national needs addressed by the overall program and the specific questions addressed by each of subprograms. A clearer articulation of the vision, mission, and objectives of the overall program may lead to a clearer explanation of the key questions addressed by the each of the subprograms. Clearer statements of vision, mission, and objectives must be developed for the MRSP through in-depth consultation and discussion between MRSP users and MRSP staff. Only through such interactions with users will the MRSP develop a service culture to complement its scientific culture. CULTURE, CLIENTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 2 To fulfill its mission, the MRSP and its Plan should shift away from an organizational culture dominated by self-direction and independent research toward one that also embraces projects developed through collaboration with users.

The culture of an organization is defined by many factors. These include the extent to which the staff understand and project the organization's vision, mission, and objectives; the way the organization communicates with its clients and users and how it responds to their needs; the way in which it organizes and manages its operations in order to meet its objectives; and the attitudes, values, and motivation of individuals and management. The culture of an organization should not be static; it must change as its external environment changes. The external environment within which the MRSP operates has changed more rapidly and extensively than the program itself. This requires that the MRSP reexamine how it operates, why, and for whom. The MRSP and its forerunners have a distinguished record of

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

48

conducting and reporting excellent science. This record is enviable and valuable, and the panel endorses this effort fully, anticipating that it will continue to be enhanced. Having said this, however, the panel suggests that in response to external changes the MRSP should now view itself not only as a science organization but also as a service organization with direct responsibilities to meet the immediate needs and expectations of its users. The science component nonetheless remains vital for long-term needs (see General Recommendation 3). The clients and users of MRSP products are many. First and foremost are the public and elected and appointed officials who represent them. Other clients, users, and interested parties include federal land-management agencies, the mining and quarrying industries, environmental organizations, state geological surveys, state regulatory agencies, local governments, universities, other federal agencies (particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers), and other groups within the USGS (particularly in the Water Resources Division and in the geologic mapping, energy, and marine and coastal programs). Although the MRSP Plan has identified federal land-management agencies as primary users, the panel has doubts that the MRSP staff has an adequate understanding of the needs of these clients or how MRSP information is being used. Furthermore, as a result of interviews with land-management agencies, the panel concluded that these agencies do not fully appreciate the potential value and usefulness of resource assessments, and they are not convinced of the continuing need for resource assessments. The MRSP staff has not taken full advantage of opportunities to improve its program through partnerships. Data and expertise that currently reside in industry (particularly regarding assessments), state geological surveys, and academia, if incorporated into the MRSP and checked for quality by the USGS, could greatly enhance the efficiency and thoroughness of the program. Participation with academia through various mechanisms could also be used to ensure that key researchers have an opportunity to contribute to the program. Greater outreach to all potential users will help the program break out of its pattern of isolation. Many individuals interviewed by the panel expressed concerns about the timeliness of MRSP reports. In some instances reports were released well after a time at which they would have been of optimal

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

49

value to the user. Furthermore, many users of MRSP work are not scientific experts and need information and analysis in a format that is more compatible for their use than has been the practice. The panel recognizes the dilemma that the MRSP has in meeting the needs of users and at the same time maintaining the high quality of their traditional scientific products (i.e., professional papers and fully reviewed maps and circulars), but service to users must be a prime objective of the MRSP. The panel repeatedly heard opinions from users that the MRSP should devote more attention and effort to geological mapping and related basic geoscience data acquisition. The panel noted that there is minimal reference in the MRSP Plan to the integration of geologic mapping in the assessment or mitigation subprograms. Further, the panel finds it inappropriate that, on the basis of briefings received from USGS personnel, there is little apparent integration of planning priorities between projects in the Geologic Division's National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and mapping in connection with MRSP assessment activities. The panel is aware of the possibility that this lack of correlation may be more apparent than real and may reflect limitations of the evidence placed before the panel. Nevertheless, this topic is conspicuous by its absence in the MRSP Plan. The MRSP may be able to leverage its geological mapping activities through closer coordination with state geological surveys. The federal-state partnership established under the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program provides a convenient mechanism for achieving this goal. The concerns expressed above (developed from individuals interviewed by the panel) reinforce the panel's perception that the MRSP is too strongly internally focused. The panel suggests that the MRSP must now modify this traditional approach by changing its operational culture to work more closely with clients and users. Some specific recommendations follow: • The MRSP staff should actively involve users in planning projects to help determine the appropriate work products, analytical techniques, map scale, level of detail, and other parameters. The MRSP could benefit greatly from much more external input (from industry, other federal government scientists, land managers, policy makers, state government, academia, environmental organizations, and

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

50

the general public) at all stages of its work, especially in planning and review. Obviously, different users should be approached for different projects. For example, land managers and affected parties will have more interests in assessments, whereas academia may have more to contribute to long-term research projects. External input is needed on proposals and plans, for specific projects, work in progress, and review of reports and maps prior to publication. This external input can be solicited at minimal cost to the MRSP. For example, the USGS Water Resources Division has established liaison committees for the projects within its National Water Quality Assessment Program, as well as a review committee for its research activities. These committees have been successful in guiding projects, and communicating preliminary results to a wide range of users. The panel recommends that similar committees be considered for MRSP activities. Such committees could also promote an understanding of how MRSP information is being used or might be used by a variety of clients. In addition to external input at the project level, General Recommendation 4 covers external input at the program level through the creation of a program-level advisory panel. • The MRSP should seek partnerships with interested parties, in particular state agencies, industry, and academia, in the collection of data and the conduct of projects. In some instances, cost-sharing mechanisms should be pursued to increase the overall efficiency of data collection, assessments, and research. The panel recommends that the MRSP vigorously seek appropriate cost-sharing mineral-research projects with industry and international organizations where such projects are consistent with the goals and objectives of the MRSP and involve a clear connection to a public good. For example, the Geological Survey of Canada maintains a program whereby research consistent with the mission of the organization can be co-funded and co-delivered with industrial partners on a cost-shared basis. International activities should be strengthened through cooperative agreements with foreign governments, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the United Nations.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

51

• The MRSP should develop an external grants program to assist its basic research function. Such grants would help to ensure that the overall program continues with a high level of quality, would allow flexibility for rapid redirection of programs as needed, and would provide an opportunity to coordinate with ongoing research at universities. Other USGS programs and other mission agencies, such as NASA, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Institutes of Health, have or are developing extramural research programs that complement their intramural research programs. The appropriate balance between intramural and extramural research programs for the MRSP should be addressed by the external advisory panel proposed in General Recommendation 4. The advisory panel could also help identify grand challenges in the area of resource and environmental research and guide research directions for the subprogram and the extramural funding program. • The MRSP should be responsive to the needs of users to have reports completed in a timely fashion. Better understanding of user needs, through continuing dialog, will help to establish realistic timelines. A balance must be kept between timely products, such as open-file reports that are needed for immediate project requirements, and fully reviewed, high-quality maps, professional papers, and bulletins that are the hallmark of USGS products. Recognizing that the MRSP should incorporate costs of publications into its budget, the panel urges that the MRSP maintain this balance and seek efficiencies through the use of new technologies, including electronic products such as CD-ROMs. • The panel concludes that the 1987 review of the USGS mineral resources program conducted by the Committee Advisory to the U.S. Geological Survey (National Research Council, 1987) contains findings and recommendations that remain valid today (Sidebar 3.1). In particular, given the fundamental importance of geologic mapping in the assessment and mitigation subprograms, the panel concludes that this activity should be more strongly reflected in the MRSP plan.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

SIDEBAR 3.1 EXCERPTS FROM THE 1987 REVIEW OF THE USGS MINERALS PROGRAM Lack of Focus—Extreme Individualism: Many Survey professionals apparently believe that their principal function in the Survey is to pursue their own individual or topical programs, some of which can extend for many years. Some individualism is obviously desirable, provided the projects mesh with the Survey's major goals. But when allowed to operate too freely, individualism results in lack of program concentration and project completion, and leads to major complications in establishing and achieving deadlines. Teamwork-attitude and mission-orientation could be improved by: ... having all projects and programs undergo outside peer review at least every two years. (p. 8) Communication and Motivation: Closely related to [the preceding] item ... is the necessity to communicate accurately the Survey's needs and changes in its programs to the professional staff. In the review of the Office of Mineral Resources, the Subcommittee found a wide diversity of opinion as to the responsibility of the Office, ranging from “pure research and no economically-related responsibilities,” to responsive and exclusively “public service” (p. 8). Insufficient Time Devoted to Field Mapping: The “limited field season” approach to mapping and other field-related activities is wasteful of time and effort. Most Survey workers devote less than three months of a year to actual field work, including those who are involved in mapping and examining ore deposits as a major activity. The quality of these programs would be greatly enhanced by more original mapping. It is unfortunate that many of the competent “mappers” are spending a disproportionate amount of time on office and laboratory activities (p. 9).

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

52

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

53

CORE COMPETENCE

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 3 The MRSP should place more emphasis on maintaining and continuing to develop its core competence in mineral deposit research and minerals-related environmental research in order to anticipate and respond to future national needs for mineral resource information.

The panel concludes that the public would be well served by the MRSP maintaining its expertise related to important and timely national issues. In particular, a knowledge of the origin and geochemistry of mineral deposits will enhance decisions that must be made regarding the protection of the environment as related to the extraction of mineral resources. The panel therefore urges the MRSP to build on its existing strengths, such as resource assessments and mineral deposits research, and to apply that knowledge to ensuring a future mineral resource supply for the United States while simultaneously protecting the environment. The panel recommends that the MRSP maintain and strengthen core competence required to meet national needs for mineral resource research and information. As described below, that core competence involves the following elements: (1) Excellence in Mineral Deposit Research, (2) Scientific Integrity, and (3) Expert Professional Staff. Excellence in Mineral Deposit Research The panel recommends that research on the geology, geochemistry, and genesis of mineral deposits, a long-standing strength of the U.S. Geological Survey, be continued. Publications arising from USGS research on mineral deposits have appeared in Monographs, Professional Papers, Bulletins, Circulars, Open-File Reports, and professional journals. This remarkable body of literature is in continual use and demand by a large number of users throughout the world. Literature as much as 120 years old is still consulted, and the longevity

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

54

of these basic research products dealing with mineral deposits cannot be overemphasized. Research on mineral deposits should consist of both basic and applied research. Basic research includes the documentation of time-space characteristics and the genesis of mineral occurrences. Applied research includes the application of basic research to the discovery of mineral deposits, to the assessment of terranes for their mineral potential, and to the evaluation of the environmental characteristics of unmined and mined mineral deposits. Basic and applied research on mineral deposits is fundamental to the successful design and implementation of field and laboratory techniques under the Mitigation Studies, Assessments, and Resource Investigations Subprograms of the MRSP. Scientific Integrity The USGS has an enviable and well-deserved reputation for an extremely high level of scientific integrity. Every effort must be made to maintain this reputation. To avoid the inadvertent loss of scientific integrity, it is important that the USGS have a unified approach for addressing issues of data quality, and that this approach is followed by the MRSP. Every care must be taken to maintain scientific and reporting standards and to be absolutely clear and unambiguous on how measurement were made and how reliable they are. As the USGS increasingly uses outside laboratories or a central USGS laboratory, the original research investigators will have less control over the quality of the analytical work conducted on field samples that they collect. This lack of control can be remedied by preparing detailed quality control protocols for collection, handling, preservation, and analysis of field samples. A standardized approach to these processes will also increase the accessibility and usability of the data. MRSP scientists should work collaboratively with users to design quality assurance and control programs that meet user needs.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

55

Professional Expertise The scientific credibility and respect attributed to the USGS has resulted, in large part, from the traditional high quality of the scientific personnel. Many of the most famous and prestigious scientists in American geology have worked within the historical equivalents of the current MRSP. This traditional credibility and respect, based on the quality of the personnel, must be retained and strengthened. Therefore, the MRSP must make every effort to retain and to recruit “the best and brightest” personnel. As retirements or transfers occur, the managers within the MRSP and Subprograms must identify the areas of greatest scientific need and value, and hire the best personnel available. In identifying the highest priorities for new hiring, the managers within MRSP should pay special attention to strengthening and developing the newly emphasized components of Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits and Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines. However, opportunities must also be made to recruit first-class personnel in the traditional elements of MineralResource Frontiers and Mineral-Deposit Studies, especially because downsizing and retirements have greatly decreased the number of experts in mineral resources within the USGS (Figure 1-1). During the scientific and organizational transitions that are now occurring within the USGS, it would be highly desirable for the MRSP to further strengthen and develop scientific and project relationships with appropriate personnel in the Water Resources and National Mapping Divisions, and in other programs in the Geologic Division, especially the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 4 The MRSP and its Plan should place greater emphasis on improving the mechanisms and procedures for comprehensive planning, setting priorities, and evaluating and enhancing performance, particularly through external reviews or advisory panels.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

56

The principle of calling on external guidance to assist in program design and development is well established. Many federal agencies have strengthened and built support for their programs through the use of advisory panels, such as those governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, National Research Council committees, and other less formal arrangements (Sidebar 3.2). The National Research Council panel is very concerned that MRSP clients, users, stakeholders, and partners of the MRSP have not been adequately consulted in the design, implementation, and scheduling of previous assessments and resource investigations and that close collaboration with these users has either not taken place or has commonly been unsatisfactory. Several alternative mechanisms can be envisioned to address the need for external guidance (Sidebar 3.2). General Recommendation 2 covers input at the project level. At the program level, the panel suggests that the MRSP consider establishing an external advisory panel. Suggested charges for the panel may include helping to establish priorities that would guide project selection; providing guidance regarding directions of the program; identifying linkages with other USGS programs and other federal and state programs; helping to establish performance measurement criteria and an external peer-review system; and helping to maintain awareness and interest on the issues and concerns in the broad community of users. Such an advisory panel could contain representation from federal and state agencies, industry, universities, consultants, and other users of MRSP research products.

SIDEBAR 3.2 POSSIBLE MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE EXTERNAL GUIDANCE • Project-level liaison and review committees (see General Recommendation 2) • Program-level advisory panel established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act • Program-level advisory panel established by the National Research Council • Exchange of employees with other federal agencies and with other USGS programs.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

57

In addition to this advisory panel, the MRSP should consider asking the National Research Council to periodically review program plans, such as has been the task of this panel. We note, for example, that the minerals information activities transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the USGS in January, 1996 were not included in the MRSP Plan or the charge to the panel. Given the importance of these features in meeting national needs for mineral resource information and in the core competence in the MRSP (General Recommendation 3), we suggest that the matter be externally reviewed. An on-going NRC review committee under the Water Science and Technology Board has been successful for the research programs of the Water Resources Division of the USGS. The committee has produced several reports in the last five years, and these reports have helped guide programs in the Water Resources Division. As noted in Chapter 2, the MRSP would benefit from better communication between its staff and staff of the federal land-management agencies. The MRSP should consider exchanging employees with other federal agencies (on personnel details through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act) to learn more about user needs and approaches, and to help follow through with uses of MRSP products. Similarly, exchanges of MRSP personnel with other units within the USGS, particularly the Water Resources Division and the geologic mapping, energy, and marine and coastal programs in the Geologic Division would foster cooperation and improve overall efficiency. Intra-agency transfers of staff could be used to build expertise in areas such as hydrology and microbiology and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the relatively new environmentally-oriented subprograms. Linked to the mechanisms discussed above is the question of setting and maintaining appropriate program balance. This question was part of the charge to the panel, but it proved difficult to address. Without more quantitative input regarding the future needs and priorities of users of the MRSP products, and without better knowledge of the relations between the MRSP and other USGS programs, we found it impossible to adequately evaluate the funding levels, scope, and program balance. The panel recognizes that this will require extensive discussions within the MRSP, within the USGS, and particularly with users. This evaluation could be a prime responsibility of an advisory panel.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

58

The level, balance, and scope of the research in the Plan have been developed during a time of disruption and transition in the USGS. Even if they were designed to provide an appropriate scientific basis for informed decisionmaking and to build a scientific foundation for the future at the time they were developed, the panel questions whether they are appropriate now. The level of funding for the MRSP and the balance of funding among its subprograms deserves thorough collaborative review by MRSP personnel, users, and collaborative agencies and organizations. In order to address these matters, the short-term client needs for mineral resource information and the core competence requirements of the Program to meet the long-term public needs should be carefully evaluated. This will require extensive discussions within the MRSP, with the USGS, and particularly with users. With this background it will be possible for the MRSP and users to develop funding levels, scope, and balance for the program that will address both current clients needs and long-term national needs for mineral resource information. Discussion of the level, balance, and scope of activities in the Plan could be a major oversight responsibility of the proposed MRSP advisory panel. The panel has commented generally, however, on the internal distribution of funding within the MRSP. Specifically, Recommendation C (Chapter 2), says that assessments can be conducted more efficiently while still meeting the needs of land management agencies, and that the cost-savings should be directed toward more fundamental investigations in other parts of the MRSP. Recommendation G suggests redirecting funds from Studies in Support of Remediation to fundamental investigations in the MRSP. Looking to the future, the panel agrees with the MRSP Plan's increasing emphasis on concerns about the impacts of mineral resource development on the environment. To this extent, the panel finds that fundamental studies (particularly in the Environmental Behavior of Mineral Deposits and the Geochemical Backgrounds and Baselines components of the Mitigation Studies Subprogram) deserve more emphasis. Also related to the questions of funding levels, scope, and program balance, the MRSP should focus on providing data and information that are of national interest and avoid commitment to projects that are more properly the responsibilities of state and local governments. For example, the proposed study of aggregate resources

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

59

in the corridor along the Colorado Front Range might be viewed as a Colorado and Wyoming state issue unless the USGS establishes a compelling national justification for the project. There is a clear federal role when issues are generic in nature, affect a number of states, or where land is managed by the federal government. In such instances, it is important that fair and appropriate costsharing arrangements be developed. Funds can flow in either direction. Finally, the panel notes the recommendations of the 1995 National Research Council report on Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. With regard to funding, this report addresses the need for maintaining a world-class level of scientific and technical performance. While other federal agencies provide a small amount of support for research on mineral resources, the MRSP is the largest federal program in this area. In its review, the panel developed concerns that the amount of funding for the MRSP and the current performance of the program are not sufficient to achieve the desired world-class level of performance. As stated above, the panel finds that to establish the appropriate level of support for the program, extensive discussions within the MRSP, within the USGS, and with users are necessary.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

60

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

61

References

Barton, P.B., D.A. Brew, S. Ludington, D.A. Lindsey, R.A. Ayuso, E.R. Force, B.A. Gamble, R. J. Goldfarb, D.A. John, and K.M. Johnson. 1995. Recommendations for assessments of undiscovered mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-82, 104 p. Becker, G.F. 1882. Geology of the Comstock Lode and Washoe district. U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 3, 422 p. Dobra, J.L., and P.R. Thomas. 1995. The U.S. gold industry 1994: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 18, 32 p. Du Bray, E. (ed.). 1995. Preliminary compilation of descriptive geoenvironmental mineral deposit models. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-831, 272 p. Eaton, G.P. 1996. What's ahead for the USGS? Geotimes 41(3):24-26. Harris, D., and M. Rieber. 1993. Evaluation of the United States Geological Survey's three-step assessment methodology. University of Arizona, 637 p. Knopf, Adolf. 1929. The Mother Lode system of California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 157, 88 p. Metals Economics Group. 1995. Corporate exploration strategies: a worldwide analysis—Analysis of worldwide exploration expenditures, p. 11-37. National Research Council. 1987. The Program and Management of the USGS Office of Mineral Resources: A Critique. Committee Advisory to the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 11 p. National Research Council. 1991. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources—An Evaluation of the Department of the Interior's

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

REFERENCES

62

1989 Assessment Procedures. Committee on Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 108 p. National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 97 p. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995a. Mineral commodity summaries, 202 p. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995b. Mineral industry surveys—gold, annual review—1994, 12 p. U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. The National Mineral Resource Surveys Program: A Plan for Mineral-Resource and Mineral-Environmental Research for National Land-Use, Environmental, and Mineral-Supply Decision Making (“The MRSP Plan”), 45 p. Yates, R.G., and G.A. Thompson. 1959. Geology and quicksilver deposits of the Terlingua district, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 312, 114 p.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX A 63

Appendix A

Summary of MRSP Plan

The National Mineral Resource Surveys Program

A Plan for Mineral-Resource and Mineral-Environmental Research for National Land-Use, Environmental, and Mineral-Supply Decision Making U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

1995

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States is continually faced with important decisions regarding the use of Federal lands, environmental protection, and supply of mineral raw materials. The Nation's 740 million acres of public lands have been, and are likely to continue to be, a source for a large share of U.S. mineral production. Land-managing agencies must develop land-use plans that reconcile competing demands for mining and other human activities, while recognizing environmental values and ensuring the sustainability of resources and natural environments. Thus, the Nation's need for minerals must be balanced with environmentally sound methods for extraction. Although mineral supplies are currently abundant, new resource development will be necessary as deposits are depleted. Also, future shortages may occur as demand for resources increases, local or regional political instability curtails supplies, and environmental concerns further restrict mining. The United States must continue to monitor global sources of minerals so that possible shortages are anticipated sufficiently in advance to allow alternative sources or materials to be identified and secured. Our ability to make informed decisions concerning land stewardship, mitigation, and mineral supply ultimately depends on having current, accurate, unbiased information on the location, quality, and quantity of mineral resources, and on the environmental consequences of their development. These national issues are addressed by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Mineral Resource Surveys Program (MRSP), which provides objective scientific information to Congress, Federal and State agencies, industry, and the general public on all aspects of mineral resources. In the committee report accompanying the FY 1995 Department of the Interior appropriations bill, the U.S. Congress directed the USGS to develop a program plan for mineral-resource activities. This document presents a comprehensive, balanced, and integrated 5-year plan to address key mineral-resource issues, increase our understanding of the processes that form and destroy mineral deposits, and improve our predictive capabilities to help guide the sustainable development of the Nation's mineral resources and maintain its natural environments. The plan has been reviewed by the USGS, the Department of the Interior, other Federal agencies, and State institutions. Research activities of the Mineral Resource Surveys Program are conducted under four complementary, issue-related subprograms (fig. A): Assessments, Mitigation Studies, Resource Investigations, and Information and Technology Transfer. These subprograms, although responding to different issues, are interrelated and mutually supporting (fig. B). The program structure is designed to eliminate duplication so that information and knowledge acquired by activities conducted under each subprogram are available to all other subprograms. The subprograms are prioritized into a 5-year plan on the basis of national needs (fig. C), redirecting appropriated funds within the MRSP to better address the major minerals-related issues facing the Nation. • Assessments will remain the core focus of the MRSP (fig. C), reflecting the continued commitment to meeting the priority needs and requests for mineralresource and mineral-environmental information by Federal land-managing agencies. The USGS works in partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (FS), and other Federal agencies, to conduct and coordinate assessment and related earthscience studies on Federal lands, primarily in response to priorities set by the land-managing agencies. Integrated mineral-resource and mineral-environmental assessments provide the agencies with information on known mineral deposits, predict the probable location and quantity of undiscovered mineral resources, and anticipate the kinds of environmental effects that could result from minerals development.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

65

Figure A. Organization of the Mineral Resource Surveys Program The USGS conducts recurring regional and national assessments to (1) increase knowledge of known and undiscovered mineral resources and their environmental characteristics at regional scales nationwide, (2) develop and improve national digital data bases, and (3) provide quick response to requests from Congress, Federal and State land-managing agencies, industry, and the public for minerals-related information. Mineral-environmental assessments are a new component of the MRSP and were developed in response to requests by Federal land managers. A priority of this 5-year plan is to fully develop the capabilities necessary to meet these priority requests. • Mitigation Studies will increase during this 5-year plan (fig. C). This increasing emphasis is in response to: (1) requests from Federal landmanaging and regulatory agencies for information to assist them in the mitigation and remediation of environmental impacts of minerals development; (2) Congressional concerns regarding possible environmental hazards associated with inactive and abandoned mine lands, many of which are located on Federal lands; and (3) the need to improve predictive capabilities regarding the environmental impacts of mineral resources and their development. Mitigation Studies provide information to assist governmental efforts to identify hazards on inactive and abandoned mine lands on public lands, to determine their impact on humans and the environment, and to formulate solutions to mitigate their impact. The studies reduce costs by scientifically determining the extent and character of environmental impacts as a basis for developing effective controls. Priority activities include: • Development of regional baseline geochemical maps for major areas of inactive and abandoned mines in the United States to assist Federal and State agencies in establishing priorities for reclamation; • Development of improved methods to compare and distinguish between natural and human-induced chemical distributions;

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

66

• Investigations into geologic constraints on remediation plans for priority Federal clean-up sites; • Development of geoenvironmental deposit models that characterize the environmental behavior of particular mineral-deposit types to improve predictive capabilities. The scientific information resulting from these investigations assists Federal and State regulatory and land-managing agencies, as well as industry, to more effectively manage the Nation's lands and resources, develop resources in environmentally responsible ways, maintain cleaner water supplies, and design more cost-effective remediation plans. • Resource Investigations will decrease during this 5-year plan (fig. C). This decreasing emphasis reflects: (1) the changing priorities of government and industry for increased information on mineralenvironmental issues; (2) an immediate need to build mineralenvironmental capabilities in other areas of the program to meet client requests; (3) the availability of a large base of mineral-resource information and knowledge gained through 116 years of USGS research; and (4) a current supply of metals generally adequate for short-term needs. The USGS continues to be at the forefront in development of new mineral-deposit concepts and in identifying new regions of mineral-resource potential. This frontier research provides theoretical and conceptual models to improve capabilities to predict where future mineral resources may be found and the kinds of deposits likely to host those resources. Such research is not generally undertaken by the private sector, which focuses its efforts on well-known deposit types in more traditional mineral-producing regions that have more immediate prospect for financial return. Priority mineral-resource investigations include:

Figure B. Interrelationships between subprograms of the Mineral Resource Surveys Program

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX A

67

Figure C. Approximate percentage of effort in each of the four subprograms of the MRSP • Development of new theories of mineral-deposit formation to define new and unconventional deposit types; • Studies of selected mineral districts and regions to test new theories of mineral deposit formation and define new areas with potential for undiscovered mineral resources; • Development of new mineral-deposit models and revision of existing models, including tonnage and grade information for well-sampled deposits to improve predictive capabilities; • Selective cooperative industry and international mineral-resource investigations to help maintain accurate and current global minerals information. The information provided by USGS resource investigations aids the Federal Government in development of resource policies that maintain secure, reliable, and cost-effective supplies of mineral raw materials. The information also benefits the minerals industry by identifying new deposit types and regions for future exploration. • Information and Technology Transfer will remain an important component of the program during this 5-year plan (fig. C). The development and efficient distribution of mineral-resource data bases in digital formats is a major priority of the program. It is also important to improve capabilities to interpret data through scientific visualization techniques such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The MRSP communicates with the users of minerals information to identify their information needs. USGS researchers work to anticipate national needs, identify emerging trends and minerals issues, and ensure that products are relevant and presented in formats appropriate for the user's needs. Important training and outreach activities include: (1) increasing understanding of the significance and limitations of mineral-resource data and information and (2) increasing awareness of local, regional, national, and global minerals-related issues.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX A

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

68

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

69

Appendix B List of Presentations to the Panel

at Meetings of the PANEL TO REVIEW THE MINERAL RESOURCE SURVEYS PROGRAM PLAN OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Overview and Future Directions of USGS and Geologic Division—Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS Overview of Mineral Resource Surveys Program (MRSP) and National Plan— Willis White and Klaus Schulz, USGS 1. 2. 3. 4.

Why did the USGS request a NRC review? What are the expectations of the USGS? How will the NRC report be utilized? How was the National Plan developed?

USGS-MRSP: Mineral Assessments—Jane Hammarstrom (presenter), Paul Barton, Lawrence Drew USGS-MRSP Mitigation Studies—Geoffrey Plumlee (presenter), Larry Gough, Stanley Church USGS-MRSP: Resource Investigations—David John (presenter), Byron Berger, David Leach USGS-MRSP: Information and Technology Transfer— Kathleen Johnson (presenter), Richard McCammon, Gary Raines

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

70

U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM): Mineral Information and Analysis ctivities— John DeYoung, USGS (introduction); George Coakley, USBM (presenter); W. David Menzie, USGS; Ronald Balazik, USBM; Michael McKinley, USBM Collateral USGS Programs—Timothy Miller, Chief, National Water Quality Assessment, USGS; David Houseknecht, Acting Chief, Energy Resource Survey Program New Program Directions for the U.S. Geological Survey—Richard Carten, Budget Information and Planning Process for the MRSP; Bruce Lipin, USGS Initiative on a Watershed Approach to Characterize and Remediate Abandoned Mine Lands; William Langer, USGS Initiative on Loss of Resources Critical to the Support of the Nation's Infrastructure White House Perspectives—Janet Irwin, White House Office of Management and Budget; Murray Hitzman, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Agency Perspectives—Mark Schaefer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water & Science, designee; Rhea Graham, Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines; Thomas Kitsos and Donald Hill, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals, Minerals Management Service; C. Thomas King, U.S. Forest Service; Robert McSwain, Department of State; Robert Bastian, Environmental Protection Agency Federal Agency Perspectives (field offices)— Frank Salwerowicz, Deputy State Director (Colorado), Bureau of Land Management; Melody Holm and Rusty Dersch, U.S. Forest Service (Colorado); Robert D. Higgins, National Park Service (Colorado); James Dunn, Mining Waste Team Leader, Environmental Protection Agency (Colorado) State Agency Perspectives—Vicki Cowart, State Geologist and Director, Colorado Geological Survey; Bruce K. Stover, Senior Geologist,

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX B

71

Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; Dianne R. Nielson*, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality; Jonathan G. Price*, State Geologist and Director, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Perspectives of Non-Governmental Organizations— Rick Reininger, Senior Vice President, National Stone Association; Debra Knopman, Director, Center for Environmental Economics, Progressive Foundation; Philip Hocker, President, Mineral Policy Center Private Sector Perspectives—Connie Holmes, Senior Vice President, National Mining Association; Hugo Dummett*, Group Manager and Senior Vice President, BHP Minerals International; Travis Hudson, Independent Consultant, Remediation Technology; Donald Runnells*, President, Sheperd Miller, Inc.

*Member, National Research Council Panel to Review the Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan of the U.S. Geological Survey

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX B

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

72

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

73

Appendix C Responses to Specific Questions in the Statement of Task for the Panel Although the panel did not structure the body of the report to directly answer specific questions in the Statement of Task, we feel that all questions have been addressed as adequately as possible. This appendix provides a guide to sections in the report where responses to specific questions can be found. (1) Evaluate the Plan of the Mineral Resource Surveys Program in terms of the nation's long-term needs for minerals research and information, the completeness and balance of the program, and the scientific significance, credibility, and relevance of the overall program. Most of the response to this part of the task is included in Chapter 2 of this report, in which the panel evaluates the Plan and makes specific recommendations for individual subprograms. Other recommendations regarding overarching issues, including balance and scientific integrity, are included in Chapter 3. Aspects of this question, such as completeness and balance of the program, cannot be addressed with the available information, as explained in the report (see discussion of Recommendation 4 in Chapter 3). Does the Plan address the nation's needs in mineral resources, both present-day and long-term? In Chapter 2 the panel notes that the rationale in the MRSP plan for continued mineral resource assessments does not include the important aspect of mineral supply as a continuing legitimate national need, either present day or long term. Some specific recommendations in Chapter 3, particularly regarding communications and core competence, provide means by which the MRSP can assure that long-term needs are met. As noted in Chapter 3, the program plans for the

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

74

information functions that have been transferred from the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the USGS are not included in the MRSP plan. What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities, and who are the appropriate customers for the USGS MRSP? Recommendations 1 through 4 in Chapter 3 all address aspects of roles and responsibilities. The breadth of customers is discussed in the justification for Recommendation 2, concerning clients and communications. Does the USGS MRSP duplicate the activities of other federal programs with responsibilities related to mineral resources? Although the panel may not have had complete exposure to federal programs related to mineral resources, there do not appear to be other federal agencies that duplicate MRSP activities. On the contrary, with the demise of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the MRSP stands as the only federal program with clear responsibilities in hard mineral resources. The need for this program is articulated in the MRSP plan and in Chapter 1 of this report. Are the program priorities, products, and audience appropriate to the goals and objectives of the Plan? Recommendations 1 and 2 in Chapter 3, which address the MRSP mission, culture, clients, and communication, provide suggestions for improvements in these areas. Are the level, scope, and balance of research in the Plan sufficient to provide a scientific basis for informed decision-making and to build a scientific foundation for the future? These issues are addressed in the sections of Chapter 2 regarding Mitigation Studies and Resource Investigations and in Recommendation 3 in Chapter 3, concerning core competence. As noted in question (1) above, aspects of this question could not be answered with the available information. (2) Provide recommendations as to how the Plan could be modified to improve its effectiveness in meeting the long-term needs of the nation. Suggestions for improvements are embodied in Recommendations 1 through 4 in Chapter 3. What are future research needs, activities, and opportunities?

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX C

75

Some of these are mentioned under Recommendation 3 in Chapter 3, concerning core competence. Others are developed in Recommendations 2 and 4 and in Chapter 2. What criteria should be established to evaluate the appropriateness and priority of suggested MRSP activities? This question is addressed under Recommendations 2 and 4 in Chapter 3. What areas of scientific expertise will be needed by the MRSP to effectively respond to future issues? The panel answers this question in Recommendation 3, concerning core competence.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX C

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

76

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

77

Appendix D International Comparisons: Changing Cultures in National Geological Surveys Most national geological surveys have undergone major changes in recent years. These have been due to pressures to make programs more relevant to societal needs, budget and staff reductions, and, in certain cases, by massive dislocations in their home political and economic environments. The last factor, for example, has dramatically affected organizations in former eastern bloc countries in Europe. Even in countries where centrally planned economies remain, such as China, geological organizations at national and regional levels are undergoing significant changes that are related partly to the globalization of mineral trade and the arrival of foreign companies seeking joint-venture exploration and mining opportunities in the country. These factors are influencing the missions of surveys in some cases but more commonly they are having major impacts on programs and operating cultures. The missions of major national surveys in developed countries are generally similar to that of the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, although there are differences in emphasis and priority among mission components. Whatever the individual variations, however, the common denominator in missions is the provision of geoscience information needed by nations to aid in managing resources, ensuring environmental quality, contributing to economic development, and promoting the safety and security of their citizens. Although the underlying missions of surveys have not changed in major ways, the pressures on them from their external environments are driving significant cultural change in most organizations. There are three common manifestations of this change: closer, interactive relations with clients in both research and applications; emphasis on

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

78

collaborative, multi-partner and multidisciplinary research and operations; and, a focus on the quicker dissemination of project results and products. Many geological surveys have undergone downsizing and budget reductions in recent years. In Europe, for example, the Geological Institute of Hungary (MAFI) was reduced in size by more than 50 percent following the collapse of the communist regime. In Germany, the Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) has been held to very limited budget increases but has had to absorb the functions and responsibilities of the former German Democratic Republic (DDR) geological survey following reunification. The British Geological Survey (BGS) has for years struggled to maintain its basic, long-term core funding in the face of pressures to depend increasingly on revenues from research and service contracts. In North America, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) will lose about 30 percent of its base funding over the period 1995-1998. The pressures on geological surveys due to budget and staff constraints have been intensified by requirements for expanded programs in environmental geosciences. With growing public concerns about the environmental consequences of industrial activities, including mining, and their long-term impacts on public health, the stresses in societies generated by land-use conflicts, and a myriad of related societal issues, geological surveys are turning their expertise and information bases towards these problems. In a downsizing environment, such program shifts make it even more difficult to maintain threshold levels of effort in traditional “core” areas (mapping, landmass investigations, mineral and energy resource studies, etc.) Ironically however, it has been the long-term past investment in such core activities that has equipped surveys with the very information bases and skills that are now being turned toward environmental issues. The pressures noted above are forcing geological surveys everywhere to streamline operations and to develop innovative ways to stretch research and operational funds. In relations with clients and customers, surveys are striving to be more responsive to client needs through better communications, the use of external advisory panels and committees to guide programs and projects, the tailoring of research and products to specific needs of customers, and, in some cases, the conduct of joint projects with industrial clients. The British Geological Survey

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX D

79

and the Geological Survey of Sweden, to name only two examples, have developed the concept of “tailored research” extensively. Collaborative research and team projects, with both internal and external partners, have become commonplace in many surveys. Multidisciplinary projects involving participants from state and provincial levels, universities, and, in some cases, industry are increasing. New national mapping accords in Australia, Canada and the United States are examples. In Canada, this approach has been extended into minerals through EXTECH, a project to improve exploration technology and mineral deposit model applications in mineral camp studies. Finally, information technology is having an important impact on one of the classic problem areas for geological surveys—the matter of getting information and data to clients and the public domain quickly. Most organizations are in transition here, but GIS (Geographic Information Systems) developments, digital mapping and map-production, and computer-formatted products such as CDROMs are already making inroads into this problem. Other developments such as direct on-line data access for customers will accelerate this trend.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX D

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

80

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX E

81

Appendix E USGS Vision and Mission Statements

VISION The USGS is an earth-science organization that is recognized worldwide as scientifically credible, objective and demonstrably relevant to societal needs. MISSION The leadership of USGS in earth-science research and data collection provides the nation with reliable and impartial information needed to describe and understand the Earth, now and in the future. Our information supports decisions that will: • • • •

mitigate losses resulting from natural disasters; help manage the nation's water, energy, and mineral resources; enhance and protect the quality of the environment; and contribute to the nation's economic and physical development;

thereby improving the safety, health, and well-being of the people.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. APPENDIX E

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

82

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX F

83

Appendix F Biographies of Panel Members

SAMUEL S. ADAMS (Chairman) is an independent minerals consultant in Lincoln, New Hampshire, and President of Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation. He is the immediate past-president of the American Geological Institute, past-president of the Society of Economic Geologists, and former head and professor of the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. He has 24 years of industry experience as a mine and exploration geologist, exploration manager, chief geologist, and vice president for geology and technology. He is a member of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to the Supervisor of the White Mountain National Forest. Dr. Adams is a member of the NRC Committee on Earth Resources and a former member of the NRC Board on Earth Sciences and Resources. He received his A.B. and M.A. from Dartmouth College and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. PHILIP H. ABELSON is Deputy Editor of Science magazine. He served as editor of Science for 22 years and has published more than 400 editorials in Science. Dr. Abelson is past-president of International Union of Geological Sciences and the American Geological Union. He served as Director of the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and scholar in residence at Resources for the Future. He was the first American to identify products of uranium fission and was co-discoverer of element 93 (neptunium). During World War II, he invented a patented process to produce uranium hexafloride, and developed a liquid thermal diffusion process for separation of uranium isotopes that was adopted by the Manhattan project. Dr. Abelson is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. He is a member of the NRC

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX F

84

Committee on Earth Resources and has served on numerous advisory committees. His research interests include geochemistry, paleo-biochemistry, and petrology. Dr. Abelson received his B.S. and M.S. from Washington State University and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the University of California. He also holds six honorary degrees. Dr. Abelson received the Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1987, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by the President of the United States. HUGO T. DUMMETT is Group Manager and Senior Vice President for Exploration of BHP Minerals International. He directs a $100 million program with a staff of 750 people in 30 countries around the world. He has worked on most continents in minerals exploration management with significant recent discoveries, among which are the Exeter Lake diamond deposits, Hope Bay gold deposits, and Caber zinc deposits. Most of his exploration work has been in North America and Central America, Australia, and southern Africa, with an emphasis on copper, gold, and diamonds. He received a B.Sc. in Geology from the University of the Witwatersrand, and conducted graduate studies in Geology at the University of Queensland. RODERICK G. EGGERT is Associate Professor at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. He also is editor of the journal Resources Policy and 1996 President of the Mineral Economics and Management Society. Previously he taught at The Pennsylvania State University and held research appointments at Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria. Dr. Eggert is a member of the NRC Committee on Earth Resources, under the aegis of the NRC Board on Earth Sciences and Resources. He received a B.A. degree in geology from Dartmouth College, and M.S. (geochemistry and mineralogy) and Ph.D. (mineral economics) degrees from The Pennsylvania State University. D. CHRISTOPHER FINDLAY served as a Director-General in the Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, until 1992, and continued as a part-time employee until March 1995. He has many years of experience in mineral resource assessments and the management of mineral resource surveys. While at the Geological Survey of Canada, he worked on

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX F

85

multinational programs in international geoscience, mainly through UNESCO and IUGS. He also put forward a proposal in 1992 to form a world organization of Geological Surveys; this organization, called “International Consortium of Geological Surveys” has been formed as a result of the recommendations of an eight country Working Group, which he chaired. He also developed the concepts of a number of national programs while at the GSC, including the Northern Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment Program. He is a fellow of the Geological Association of Canada. Dr. Findlay received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Geology from McGill University. He received his Ph.D. in Geology from Queen's University (Kingston). ANN S. MAEST is Senior Scientist and Manager at Hagler Bailly, a consulting firm in Boulder, Colorado. Prior to that she was a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund and a research geochemist with the U.S. Geological Survey. She was an NRC Research Associate at the USGS. She is a member of the Geochemical Society and American Geophysical Union and also served on the NRC Committee on Research Programs of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Her research interests include the fate and transport of contaminants in natural waters, surface water and ground water geochemistry, restoration of mining sites, and the effects of hard rock mining on water quality. She holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry and Water Resources from Princeton University. DIANNE R. NIELSON is Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, which safeguards and protects public health and quality of life by protecting and improving environmental quality. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Nielson worked as an exploration geologist, and later directed the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. She has worked closely with mine operators to minimize environmental impacts of resource development and to ensure viable post-production land use. She has also chaired or worked on numerous state and federal commissions and advisory committees dealing with resource development and environmental issues, including the NRC Committee on Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing. She has both a Ph.D. and an M.A. in Geology from Dartmouth College and a B.A. from Beloit College.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX F

86

JONATHAN G. PRICE is State Geologist and Director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Dr. Price is president-elect of the American Institute of Professional Geologists. His prior experience includes serving as a geologist with the Anaconda Company, Adjunct Assistant Professor at Bucknell University, a geologist with U.S. Steel Corporation, and Research Associate, Research Scientist, and then Program Director, Mineral Resources at the Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin. In addition, he has served as Director of Texas Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute, lecturer in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas in Austin, and Staff Director for the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research Council. His research and publications address mineral resources, geology and geochemistry of ore deposits, igneous petrology, tectonics and geologic mapping, environmental geochemistry, and solution mining. He holds a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California at Berkeley. He received a B.A. in Geology and German from Lehigh University and an M.S. in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley. DONALD D. RUNNELLS is President of Shepherd Miller, Inc., which is a consulting environmental and geotechnical engineering firm in Fort Collins, Colorado. Previously, he served as professor of geological sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His research has been in geochemistry of natural waters, low-temperature geochemistry, water pollution, geochemical exploration, and geochemistry of trace substances. He has also served as a geochemist at Shell Development Company in Texas and Florida and as assistant professor of geology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He also was a member of the NRC's Water Science and Technology Board. He received a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University. BRIAN J. SKINNER is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Geology at Yale University. He is president of the Society of Economic Geologists, past-president of the Geological Society of America, and a fellow of the Mineralogical Society of America. He has served on several NRC committees, and was chairman of the NRC Board on Earth Sciences and the Committee on Mineral Resources and the Environment. He was a research geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey prior to becoming

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

APPENDIX F

87

professor of geology and then Chairman of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. Dr. Skinner is the author of several text books and numerous technical papers on ore deposits. He has served as editor of Economic Geology, the leading journal in its field, for 25 years. He received a B.Sc. from the University of Adelaide, an A.M. from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. DAVID A. STEPHENSON is a Consulting Hydrogeologist and is Cofounder of South Pass Resources, Inc., a water resources consulting firm in Scottsdale, Arizona. He is the immediate past-president of the Geological Society of America. He has worked in academic, government, and private sectors. His professional career began in 1961 at the Illinois State Geological Survey. He joined the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada in 1962, where he began research in ground water flow systems. Between 1965 and 1979, he served on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Geology and Geophysics, and also served as Director of the Water Resources Management Graduate Degree Program. His research focused on hydrogeology and water resources management. David Stephenson has been a member of several NRC committees and other national advisory groups. He has been the recipient of several awards and honors and holds membership on a number of professional societies. He received a B.A. in Geology from Augustana College, an M.S. in Geology from Washington State University, and a Ph.D. in Geology and Hydrogeology from the University of Illinois. PETER G. VIKRE is Manager of the Western United States Exploration Division of ASARCO Incorporated. Prior to this he was a geologist in the Southwestern Exploration Division of the same corporation. He is a member of the Society of Economic Geologists where he serves as Chairman of the Society's Research Committee, and Councilor. He was a Thayer Lindsley lecturer and is currently an Associate Editor of Economic Geology. His research interests and publications concern the geology of gold and silver deposits in the western United States. He received a B.A. in Geology from Dartmouth College, and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Economic Geology from Stanford University.

Mineral Resources and Society : A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Resource Surveys Program Plan, National